On 4/20/2018 4:09 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2018-04-20 11:23:50)
On 4/20/2018 3:24 PM, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
We use jiffies to determine when wait expires. However
Imre did find out that jiffies can and will do a >1
increments on certain situations [1]. When this happens
in a wait_for loop, we return timeout errorneously
much earlier than what the real wallclock would say.
We can't afford our waits to timeout prematurely.
Discard jiffies and change to ktime to detect timeouts.
Reported-by: Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com>
References: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/18/798 [1]
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
index 8b20824e806e..ac7565220aa3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
@@ -49,12 +49,12 @@
* check the condition before the timeout.
*/
#define __wait_for(OP, COND, US, Wmin, Wmax) ({ \
- unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(US) + 1; \
+ const ktime_t end__ = ktime_add_ns(ktime_get_raw(), 1000ll * (US)); \
Is ktime_get_raw() monotonic? Thomas suggested ktime_get()
It proclaims to be monotonic, without the clock drift calibration. For
the milliseconds we should be sleeping at most, I hope that is
immaterial.
Yes. I remembered from Imre's comment[1] that raw clock can jump and
will not be calibrated. If jumps are are not > jiffies we should be good
get_raw then.
[1]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2012-October/028878.html
-Chris
--
Thanks,
Sagar
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
