Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gt: Use spin_lock_irq() instead of local_irq_disable() + spin_lock()

2021-10-01 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2021-09-16 11:38:55 [+0200], Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Patches look good. Thank you for looking. > For both patches: > > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst > > I've been looking at running i915 with the -rt patch series, and > noticed i915_request_submit fails with

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gt: Use spin_lock_irq() instead of local_irq_disable() + spin_lock()

2021-09-16 Thread Maarten Lankhorst
Op 08-09-2021 om 20:57 schreef Sebastian Andrzej Siewior: > execlists_dequeue() is invoked from a function which uses > local_irq_disable() to disable interrupts so the spin_lock() behaves > like spin_lock_irq(). > This breaks PREEMPT_RT because local_irq_disable() + spin_lock() is not > the same

[Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gt: Use spin_lock_irq() instead of local_irq_disable() + spin_lock()

2021-09-08 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
execlists_dequeue() is invoked from a function which uses local_irq_disable() to disable interrupts so the spin_lock() behaves like spin_lock_irq(). This breaks PREEMPT_RT because local_irq_disable() + spin_lock() is not the same as spin_lock_irq(). execlists_dequeue_irq() and execlists_dequeue()