Re: [Intel-gfx] How is the progress for removing flush_scheduled_work() callers?
On 2022/11/16 22:06, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:08:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Sun, 06 Nov 2022, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >>> Like commit c4f135d643823a86 ("workqueue: Wrap flush_workqueue() using a >>> macro") says, flush_scheduled_work() is dangerous and will be forbidden. >>> We are on the way for removing all flush_scheduled_work() callers from >>> the kernel, and there are only 4 callers remaining as of linux-20221104. >>> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c:8997: >>> flush_scheduled_work(); >> >> Thanks for the reminder, I've pinged folks to get someone working on >> this. We do schedule quite a bunch of work, so it's not immediately >> obvious (at least to me) what exactly needs flushing. > > Here's my earlier cursory analysis of the subject: > https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/yy3byxfrfafql...@intel.com/ Now that a patch for mptscsih.c was proposed as https://lkml.kernel.org/r/0b9ebcfb-b647-1381-0653-b54528a64...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp , intel_display.c is going to become the last flush_scheduled_work() user. If fixing the hpd disable path takes more time, should we start with moving related works from system_wq to a local workqueue dedicated for intel_display.c ? > >> >> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/7546 >> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_execlists.c:88: >>> flush_scheduled_work(); >> >> Removed by commit 7d33fd02dd94 ("drm/i915/selftests: Remove >> flush_scheduled_work() from live_execlists") in drm-next. >> >> BR, >> Jani. >> >> -- >> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center >
Re: [Intel-gfx] How is the progress for removing flush_scheduled_work() callers?
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 12:08:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Sun, 06 Nov 2022, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > Like commit c4f135d643823a86 ("workqueue: Wrap flush_workqueue() using a > > macro") says, flush_scheduled_work() is dangerous and will be forbidden. > > We are on the way for removing all flush_scheduled_work() callers from > > the kernel, and there are only 4 callers remaining as of linux-20221104. > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c:8997: > > flush_scheduled_work(); > > Thanks for the reminder, I've pinged folks to get someone working on > this. We do schedule quite a bunch of work, so it's not immediately > obvious (at least to me) what exactly needs flushing. Here's my earlier cursory analysis of the subject: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/yy3byxfrfafql...@intel.com/ > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/7546 > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_execlists.c:88: > > flush_scheduled_work(); > > Removed by commit 7d33fd02dd94 ("drm/i915/selftests: Remove > flush_scheduled_work() from live_execlists") in drm-next. > > BR, > Jani. > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
Re: [Intel-gfx] How is the progress for removing flush_scheduled_work() callers?
On Sun, 06 Nov 2022, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Like commit c4f135d643823a86 ("workqueue: Wrap flush_workqueue() using a > macro") says, flush_scheduled_work() is dangerous and will be forbidden. > We are on the way for removing all flush_scheduled_work() callers from > the kernel, and there are only 4 callers remaining as of linux-20221104. > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display.c:8997: > flush_scheduled_work(); Thanks for the reminder, I've pinged folks to get someone working on this. We do schedule quite a bunch of work, so it's not immediately obvious (at least to me) what exactly needs flushing. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/7546 > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_execlists.c:88: > flush_scheduled_work(); Removed by commit 7d33fd02dd94 ("drm/i915/selftests: Remove flush_scheduled_work() from live_execlists") in drm-next. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center