[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
Warn when refcount is > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
Changes in v4:
* Print refcount value.
Changes in v3:
* Dropped i915 patch that is used for testing this.
No changes in v2.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 8 +++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
index 3e61aeb..062cc17 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
@@ -403,9 +403,15 @@ void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
return;
for (pipe = 0; pipe < dev->num_crtcs; pipe++) {
+ unsigned int refcount;
struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
- WARN_ON(atomic_read(&vblank->refcount) > 0);
+ refcount = atomic_read(&vblank->refcount);
+ if (refcount > 0) {
+ DRM_DEBUG("vblank refcount: %u in %s\n", refcount,
+ __func__);
+ WARN_ON(refcount > 0);
+ }
WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(vblank->enabled) &&
drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET));
--
2.10.0
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi Daniel, On 1 November 2017 at 14:23, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 09:48:28AM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> On 31 October 2017 at 21:57, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 08:37:21PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> >> My patch is supposed to catch problem with drivers. It warns when >> >> vblank refcount is non-zero in drm_vblank_cleanup call. From CI log it >> >> can be seen that warning being triggered. I feel that my patch is >> >> exposing existing issue. >> >> >> >> If I misinterpreted something please let me know. >> > >> > This is probably what's happening, but I can't merge a patch that breaks >> > CI. So we need to track down that issue before merging. >> >> I understand. Being new to DRM subsystem I don't know if I can >> contribute in finding the issue. I would be able to help if I could >> get some guidance. > > If you have an intel laptop anywhere at hand that you could use to > reproduce the issue, that would be a good start. I do have one but it is my primary machine. > Then go through the setup for the kms/drm validation suite: > > https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/gpu/drm-uapi.html#testing-and-validation > > That should allow you to locally reproduce the issue (it seems to affect > many machines, so I'd assume it doesn't matter which one you have). If this setup is going to affect my normal workflow setup I would prefer not to use it. > Once you can reproduce it should be doable to figure out where we leak > this reference (but usually it's a bit of hard work). Anyway I will give it a try and see how far I can go. > Btw I discussed your patch a bit on irc, a first step would be to also > print the refcount when it's leaked, not just warn about it. Knowing how > many references are leaked is sometimes a good hint about what's going on. I will send a v4. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > http://blog.ffwll.ch Regards, PrasannaKumar ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi Daniel, On 31 October 2017 at 21:57, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 08:37:21PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote: >> My patch is supposed to catch problem with drivers. It warns when >> vblank refcount is non-zero in drm_vblank_cleanup call. From CI log it >> can be seen that warning being triggered. I feel that my patch is >> exposing existing issue. >> >> If I misinterpreted something please let me know. > > This is probably what's happening, but I can't merge a patch that breaks > CI. So we need to track down that issue before merging. I understand. Being new to DRM subsystem I don't know if I can contribute in finding the issue. I would be able to help if I could get some guidance. Thanks, PrasannaKumar ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi Daniel,
On 31 October 2017 at 15:51, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 06:01:12PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On 30 October 2017 at 15:40, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:44:45PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
> > > wrote:
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> On 24 October 2017 at 22:18, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether
> > >> > drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch is working.
> > >> >
> > >> > Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
> > >> > ---
> > >> > Changes in v2:
> > >> > Use drm_crtc_vblank_get instead of _put. In previous patch _put was
> > >> > wrongly
> > >> > used.
> > >> >
> > >> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++
> > >> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >> >
> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > >> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > >> > index 9f45cfe..4aee1c0 100644
> > >> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > >> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > >> > @@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
> > >> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > >> > struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
> > >> >
> > >> > + enum pipe pipe;
> > >> > + for_each_pipe(dev_priv, pipe) {
> > >> > + struct intel_crtc *crtc =
> > >> > intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv,
> > >> > +
> > >> > pipe);
> > >> > + drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base);
> > >> > + }
> > >> > +
> > >> > i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
> > >> >
> > >> > if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
> > >> > --
> > >> > 2.10.0
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> From
> > >> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@drv_module_rel...@basic-reload.html
> > >> it can be seen that this patch triggers warning when vblank->refcount
> > >> > 0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
> > >>
> > >> I think patch 1 is good to go.
> > >
> > > Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you
> > > pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it
> > > fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just
> > > had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed
> > > that broke every test :-/
> > > -Daniel
> > > --
> > > Daniel Vetter
> > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> >
> > I have already sent that patch alone. Please look at
> > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/184866/.
>
> Seems to fail in CI:
>
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/32648/
>
> I guess you need to test this on a local box somewhere to figure out
> what's wrong.
My patch is supposed to catch problem with drivers. It warns when
vblank refcount is non-zero in drm_vblank_cleanup call. From CI log it
can be seen that warning being triggered. I feel that my patch is
exposing existing issue.
If I misinterpreted something please let me know.
Thanks,
PrasannaKumar
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi Daniel,
On 30 October 2017 at 15:40, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 08:44:45PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> On 24 October 2017 at 22:18, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
>> wrote:
>> > In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether
>> > drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch is working.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
>> > ---
>> > Changes in v2:
>> > Use drm_crtc_vblank_get instead of _put. In previous patch _put was wrongly
>> > used.
>> >
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++
>> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> > index 9f45cfe..4aee1c0 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> > @@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
>> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
>> > struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
>> >
>> > + enum pipe pipe;
>> > + for_each_pipe(dev_priv, pipe) {
>> > + struct intel_crtc *crtc = intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv,
>> > + pipe);
>> > + drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
>> >
>> > if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
>> > --
>> > 2.10.0
>> >
>>
>> From
>> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@drv_module_rel...@basic-reload.html
>> it can be seen that this patch triggers warning when vblank->refcount
>> > 0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
>>
>> I think patch 1 is good to go.
>
> Yeah it works, but we don't know whether it breaks anything yet. Can you
> pls resubmit just the first patch? Abusing CI was just an idea to get it
> fully tested, before we can merge it still needs to pass full CI. We just
> had an issue 2 weeks ago where CI blew up because an untested patch landed
> that broke every test :-/
> -Daniel
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch
I have already sent that patch alone. Please look at
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/184866/.
Regards,
PrasannaKumar
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
Hi Chris,
Sorry I missed adding you in to list while sending the vblank refcount
patch. Hope you saw that.
On 25-Oct-2017 9:55 PM, "PrasannaKumar Muralidharan" <
prasannatsmku...@gmail.com> wrote:
Warn when refcount > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
Changes in v3:
* Dropped i915 patch that is used for testing this.
No changes in v2.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
index 70f2b95..3e61aeb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
@@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
for (pipe = 0; pipe < dev->num_crtcs; pipe++) {
struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
+ WARN_ON(atomic_read(&vblank->refcount) > 0);
+
WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(vblank->enabled) &&
drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET));
--
2.10.0
As you anticipated Intel CI found that this patch triggers the non zero
vblank refcount warning on module unload.
Please advice on what to do next. Should I don't think I have to do
something for this patch. If that's not the case please let me know what to
do from my side for this patch.
Note: Replying from an Android device. Please forgive typos.
Thanks and regards,
PrasannaKumar
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
Warn when refcount > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
Changes in v3:
* Dropped i915 patch that is used for testing this.
No changes in v2.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
index 70f2b95..3e61aeb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
@@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
for (pipe = 0; pipe < dev->num_crtcs; pipe++) {
struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
+ WARN_ON(atomic_read(&vblank->refcount) > 0);
+
WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(vblank->enabled) &&
drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET));
--
2.10.0
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
Hi All,
On 24 October 2017 at 22:18, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
wrote:
> In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether
> drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch is working.
>
> Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> Use drm_crtc_vblank_get instead of _put. In previous patch _put was wrongly
> used.
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> index 9f45cfe..4aee1c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> @@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
>
> + enum pipe pipe;
> + for_each_pipe(dev_priv, pipe) {
> + struct intel_crtc *crtc = intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv,
> + pipe);
> + drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base);
> + }
> +
> i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
>
> if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
> --
> 2.10.0
>
From
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_6167/fi-ilk-650/igt@drv_module_rel...@basic-reload.html
it can be seen that this patch triggers warning when vblank->refcount
> 0 in vblank cleanup. This tests patch 1 successfully.
I think patch 1 is good to go.
Thanks,
PrasannaKumar
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether
drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch is working.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
Changes in v2:
Use drm_crtc_vblank_get instead of _put. In previous patch _put was wrongly
used.
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index 9f45cfe..4aee1c0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
+ enum pipe pipe;
+ for_each_pipe(dev_priv, pipe) {
+ struct intel_crtc *crtc = intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv,
+ pipe);
+ drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base);
+ }
+
i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
--
2.10.0
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/2] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
Warn when refcount > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
No change in v2.
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
index 70f2b95..3e61aeb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
@@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
for (pipe = 0; pipe < dev->num_crtcs; pipe++) {
struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
+ WARN_ON(atomic_read(&vblank->refcount) > 0);
+
WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(vblank->enabled) &&
drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET));
--
2.10.0
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] Test case for drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch
In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether
drm_vblank_cleanup refcount validation patch is working.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
Changes since RFC:
Fix compile error
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 7 +++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index 9f45cfe..d317da3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -1373,6 +1373,13 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
+ enum pipe pipe;
+ for_each_pipe(dev_priv, pipe) {
+ struct intel_crtc *crtc = intel_get_crtc_for_pipe(dev_priv,
+ pipe);
+ drm_crtc_vblank_put(&crtc->base);
+ }
+
i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
--
2.10.0
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount > 0
Warn when refcount > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
Changes since RFC:
Fix compile error
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
index 70f2b95..361aeeb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
@@ -405,6 +405,8 @@ void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
for (pipe = 0; pipe < dev->num_crtcs; pipe++) {
struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
+ WARN_ON((atomic_read(&vblank->refcount) > 0));
+
WARN_ON(READ_ONCE(vblank->enabled) &&
drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET));
--
2.10.0
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount is more than 0
Hi Ville,
On 12 October 2017 at 22:52, Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 10:30:06PM +0530, PrasannaKumar Muralidharan wrote:
>> Warn when refcount > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup.
>>
>> In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether this patch
>> is working. This will be removed once the patch gets tested.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c| 2 ++
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
>> index 70f2b95..2a6630a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
>> @@ -402,6 +402,8 @@ void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
>> if (dev->num_crtcs == 0)
>> return;
>>
>> + WARN_ON(atomic_read(&vblank->refcount) > 0);
>> +
>
> That won't even compile. Always at least compile + sparse check +
> checkpatch your stuff, otherwise you're just going to be wasting
> other people's or the CI systems's time.
CI just told me this. I will keep this in mind even for simple patches.
>> for (pipe = 0; pipe < dev->num_crtcs; pipe++) {
>> struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> index 9f45cfe..c7a93a9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
>> @@ -1373,6 +1373,7 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
>> struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
>>
>> + drm_vblank_get(dev_priv, 0);
>> i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
>>
>> if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
>> --
>> 2.10.0
>>
>> ___
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount is more than 0
Hi Chris, On 12 October 2017 at 22:37, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting PrasannaKumar Muralidharan (2017-10-12 18:00:06) >> Warn when refcount > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup. >> >> In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether this patch >> is working. This will be removed once the patch gets tested. > > You want to send it as two patches. The first to add the debug > infrastructure, then the second to trigger it. We obviously don't want > to commit a patch that itself warns about the bug it introduces! ;) > -Chris True. That's why I marked it as RFC. I hope this will trigger Intel graphics driver CI so I can wait for the outcome and send a single patch based on the result. Will that work? Thanks, PrasannaKumar ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [RFC] drm: drm_vblank_cleanup: WARN when refcount is more than 0
Warn when refcount > 0 in drm_vblank_cleanup.
In i915 driver unload drm_vblank_get is added to test whether this patch
is working. This will be removed once the patch gets tested.
Signed-off-by: PrasannaKumar Muralidharan
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c| 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 1 +
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
index 70f2b95..2a6630a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_vblank.c
@@ -402,6 +402,8 @@ void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev)
if (dev->num_crtcs == 0)
return;
+ WARN_ON(atomic_read(&vblank->refcount) > 0);
+
for (pipe = 0; pipe < dev->num_crtcs; pipe++) {
struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev->vblank[pipe];
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index 9f45cfe..c7a93a9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -1373,6 +1373,7 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
struct pci_dev *pdev = dev_priv->drm.pdev;
+ drm_vblank_get(dev_priv, 0);
i915_driver_unregister(dev_priv);
if (i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv))
--
2.10.0
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
