commit 5422b37c907e ("drm/i915/psr: Kill delays when activating psr
back.") switched from delayed work to the plain variant and while doing so
remove the check for work_busy() before scheduling a PSR activation.
This appears to cause consecutive executions of psr_activate() in this
scenario - after a worker picks up the PSR work item for execution and
before the work function can acquire the PSR mutex, a psr_flush() can
get hold of the mutex and schedule another PSR work. Without a psr_exit()
between two psr_activate() calls, the warning messages get printed.
Further, since we drop the mutex in the midst of psr_work() to wait for
PSR to idle, another work item can also get scheduled. Fix this by
returning if PSR was already active.Note: I am not 100% sure this is what is going on as I could not reproduce the bug (https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106948) This patch sort of defeats the point of the WARN_ON()s in psr_activate() now, do we still need them? Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <[email protected]> Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Dhinakaran Pandiyan <[email protected]> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c index aea81ace854b..7aa324f0d1f7 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_psr.c @@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static void intel_psr_work(struct work_struct *work) * recheck. Since psr_flush first clears this and then reschedules we * won't ever miss a flush when bailing out here. */ - if (dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits) + if (dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits || dev_priv->psr.active) goto unlock; intel_psr_activate(dev_priv->psr.enabled); -- 2.14.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
