Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/8] drm/i915: Use preempt_disable/enable_rt() where recommended

2022-02-14 Thread Mario Kleiner
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:44 AM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2022-01-27 00:29:37 [+0100], Mario Kleiner wrote: > > Hi, first thank you for implementing these preempt disables according to > Hi Mario, > > > the markers i left long ago. And sorry for the rather late reply. > > > > I had a

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/8] drm/i915: Use preempt_disable/enable_rt() where recommended

2022-02-11 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2022-01-27 00:29:37 [+0100], Mario Kleiner wrote: > Hi, first thank you for implementing these preempt disables according to Hi Mario, > the markers i left long ago. And sorry for the rather late reply. > > I had a look at the code, as of Linux 5.16, and did also a little test run > (of a stan

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/8] drm/i915: Use preempt_disable/enable_rt() where recommended

2022-01-26 Thread Mario Kleiner
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 3:03 PM Sebastian Andrzej Siewior < bige...@linutronix.de> wrote: > From: Mike Galbraith > > Mario Kleiner suggest in commit > ad3543ede630f ("drm/intel: Push get_scanout_position() timestamping into > kms driver.") > > a spots where preemption should be disabled on PREE

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/8] drm/i915: Use preempt_disable/enable_rt() where recommended

2021-12-14 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
From: Mike Galbraith Mario Kleiner suggest in commit ad3543ede630f ("drm/intel: Push get_scanout_position() timestamping into kms driver.") a spots where preemption should be disabled on PREEMPT_RT. The difference is that on PREEMPT_RT the intel_uncore::lock disables neither preemption nor in