Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-30695-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240117031212.1104034-1-nunes.erico@gmail.com>
 <20240117031212.1104034-2-nunes.erico@gmail.com> <CAKGbVbsydzXyKuhN8VyW9zYwuOMWzvz192WKKReHVX1XCnuXGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK4VdL2PnWTZ+M2eQqF22+VuF-YGKb_WjG=168BcuBDqD8+9kA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK4VdL2PnWTZ+M2eQqF22+VuF-YGKb_WjG=168BcuBDqD8+9kA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qiang Yu <yuq825@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:50:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAKGbVbvWAM64T+a6_VRL99araN_2dubu4vO=mqzCoC1p2m_X-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] drm/lima: fix devfreq refcount imbalance for job timeouts
To: Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@gmail.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, lima@lists.freedesktop.org, 
	anarsoul@gmail.com, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, 
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>, 
	David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, 
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>, christian.koenig@amd.com, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 7:14=E2=80=AFPM Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 2:36=E2=80=AFAM Qiang Yu <yuq825@gmail.com> wrote=
:
> >
> > So this is caused by same job trigger both done and timeout handling?
> > I think a better way to solve this is to make sure only one handler
> > (done or timeout) process the job instead of just making lima_pm_idle()
> > unique.
>
> It's not very clear to me how to best ensure that, with the drm_sched
> software timeout and the irq happening potentially at the same time.
This could be done by stopping scheduler run more job and disable
GP/PP interrupt. Then after sync irq, there should be no more new
irq gets in when we handling timeout.

> I think patch 4 in this series describes and covers the most common
> case that this would be hit. So maybe now this patch could be dropped
> in favour of just that one.
Yes.

> But since this was a bit hard to reproduce and I'm not sure the issue
> is entirely covered by that, I just decided to keep this small change
> as it prevented all the stack trace reproducers I was able to come up
> with.
>
> Erico