On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:12:30PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > #define ACPI_EV_DISPLAY_SWITCH (1<<0) > > @@ -814,11 +807,11 @@ void intel_opregion_fini(struct drm_device *dev) > > if (!opregion->header) > > return; > > > > + tasklet_kill(&dev_priv->opregion.asle_task); > > + > > So what if you got a new asle interrupt right here?
Before we call fini, we should have de-installed the irq and done synchronize_irq, so we only have to worry about the residual task. (At least that is what I expect!) > > if (opregion->asle) > > opregion->asle->ardy = ASLE_ARDY_NOT_READY; > > This is supposed to signal we're not ready to handle said interrupts > anymore. Not that we should rely on it either. > > It wasn't pretty before, but I think this patch widens the window for a > race. If you kept the *other* code as it were, and just changed the work > to tasklets, I'd be willing to look in the other direction... Considering the recent discussion about the negatives of tasklets/ksoftirqd, I think I was being too cavalier in this conversion, and we should only think about using tasklet where the post-interrupt latency is critical. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
