On 29/05/2020 13:35, Clément Péron wrote:
Hi Robin,
On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 14:20, Robin Murphy robin.murphy@arm.com wrote:
On 2020-05-10 17:55, Clément Péron wrote:
Convert busy_count to a simple int protected by spinlock.
A little more reasoning might be nice.
I have follow the modification requested for lima devfreq and clearly don't have any argument to switch to spinlock.
The Lima Maintainer asked to change witht the following reason : "Better make this count a normal int which is also protected by the spinlock, because current implementation can't protect atomic ops for state change and busy idle check and we are using spinlock already"
Signed-off-by: Clément Péron peron.clem@gmail.com
[...]
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.h index 0697f8d5aa34..e6629900a618 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.h @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@ #ifndef __PANFROST_DEVFREQ_H__ #define __PANFROST_DEVFREQ_H__
+#include <linux/spinlock.h> #include <linux/ktime.h>
struct devfreq; @@ -14,10 +15,17 @@ struct panfrost_device; struct panfrost_devfreq { struct devfreq *devfreq; struct thermal_cooling_device *cooling;
ktime_t busy_time; ktime_t idle_time; ktime_t time_last_update;
atomic_t busy_count;
int busy_count;/** Protect busy_time, idle_time, time_last_update and busy_count* because these can be updated concurrently, for example by the GP* and PP interrupts.*/Nit: this comment is clearly wrong, since we only have Job, GPU and MMU interrupts here. I guess if there is a race it would be between submission/completion/timeout on different job slots.
It's copy/paste from lima I will update it,
Lima ('Utgard') has separate units for geometry and pixel processing (GP/PP). For Panfrost ('Midgard'/'Bifrost') we don't have that separation, however there are multiple job slots. which are implemented as multiple DRM schedulers. So the same fix is appropriate, but clearly I missed this comment because it's referring to GP/PP which don't exist for Midgard/Bifrost.
Given that, should this actually be considered a fix for 9e62b885f715 ("drm/panfrost: Simplify devfreq utilisation tracking")?
I can't say if it can be considered as a fix, I didn't see any improvement on my board before and after this patch. I'm still facing some issue and didn't have time to fully investigate it.
Technically this is a fix - there's a small race which could cause the devfreq information to become corrupted. However it would resolve itself on the next devfreq interval when panfrost_devfreq_reset() is called. So the impact is very minor (devfreq gets some bogus figures). The important variable (busy_count) was already an atomic so won't be affected.
Steve
Thanks for you review,
Robin.