Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/udl: Kill pending URBs at suspend and disconnect

From: Takashi Iwai
Date: Tue Aug 16 2022 - 10:10:23 EST

Next message: Maxime Ripard: "Re: [PATCH v1 05/35] drm/connector: Add TV standard property"
Previous message: Jonathan Cameron: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers: iio: accel adxl312 and adxl314 support"
In reply to: Thomas Zimmermann: "Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/udl: Kill pending URBs at suspend and disconnect"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 16:01:34 +0200,
Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>
> Hi Takashi
>
> Am 16.08.22 um 15:55 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> > On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 11:19:30 +0200,
> > Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 11:13:46 +0200,
> >> Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> Am 09.08.22 um 11:03 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> >>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 09:41:19 +0200,
> >>>> Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 09.08.22 um 09:15 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> >>>>>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 09:13:16 +0200,
> >>>>>> Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Am 04.08.22 um 09:58 schrieb Takashi Iwai:
> >>>>>>>> At both suspend and disconnect, we should rather cancel the pending
> >>>>>>>> URBs immediately. For the suspend case, the display will be turned
> >>>>>>>> off, so it makes no sense to process the rendering. And for the
> >>>>>>>> disconnect case, the device may be no longer accessible, hence we
> >>>>>>>> shouldn't do any submission.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tested-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.h | 2 ++
> >>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_main.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_modeset.c | 2 ++
> >>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.h
> >>>>>>>> index f01e50c5b7b7..28aaf75d71cf 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.h
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_drv.h
> >>>>>>>> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct urb_node {
> >>>>>>>> struct urb_list {
> >>>>>>>> struct list_head list;
> >>>>>>>> + struct list_head in_flight;
> >>>>>>>> spinlock_t lock;
> >>>>>>>> wait_queue_head_t sleep;
> >>>>>>>> int available;
> >>>>>>>> @@ -84,6 +85,7 @@ static inline struct urb *udl_get_urb(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>>>>>> int udl_submit_urb(struct drm_device *dev, struct urb *urb,
> >>>>>>>> size_t len);
> >>>>>>>> int udl_sync_pending_urbs(struct drm_device *dev);
> >>>>>>>> +void udl_kill_pending_urbs(struct drm_device *dev);
> >>>>>>>> void udl_urb_completion(struct urb *urb);
> >>>>>>>> int udl_init(struct udl_device *udl);
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_main.c
> >>>>>>>> index 93615648414b..47204b7eb10e 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_main.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_main.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ void udl_urb_completion(struct urb *urb)
> >>>>>>>> urb->transfer_buffer_length = udl->urbs.size; /* reset to actual */
> >>>>>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&udl->urbs.lock, flags);
> >>>>>>>> - list_add_tail(&unode->entry, &udl->urbs.list);
> >>>>>>>> + list_move(&unode->entry, &udl->urbs.list);
> >>>>>>>> udl->urbs.available++;
> >>>>>>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&udl->urbs.lock, flags);
> >>>>>>>> @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ static int udl_alloc_urb_list(struct
> >>>>>>>> drm_device *dev, int count, size_t size)
> >>>>>>>> retry:
> >>>>>>>> udl->urbs.size = size;
> >>>>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&udl->urbs.list);
> >>>>>>>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&udl->urbs.in_flight);
> >>>>>>>> init_waitqueue_head(&udl->urbs.sleep);
> >>>>>>>> udl->urbs.count = 0;
> >>>>>>>> @@ -246,7 +247,7 @@ struct urb *udl_get_urb_timeout(struct drm_device *dev, long timeout)
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>> unode = list_first_entry(&udl->urbs.list, struct urb_node,
> >>>>>>>> entry);
> >>>>>>>> - list_del_init(&unode->entry);
> >>>>>>>> + list_move(&unode->entry, &udl->urbs.in_flight);
> >>>>>>>> udl->urbs.available--;
> >>>>>>>> unlock:
> >>>>>>>> @@ -279,7 +280,7 @@ int udl_sync_pending_urbs(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>>>>>> spin_lock_irq(&udl->urbs.lock);
> >>>>>>>> /* 2 seconds as a sane timeout */
> >>>>>>>> if (!wait_event_lock_irq_timeout(udl->urbs.sleep,
> >>>>>>>> - udl->urbs.available == udl->urbs.count,
> >>>>>>>> + list_empty(&udl->urbs.in_flight),
> >>>>>>>> udl->urbs.lock,
> >>>>>>>> msecs_to_jiffies(2000)))
> >>>>>>>> ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> >>>>>>>> @@ -287,6 +288,23 @@ int udl_sync_pending_urbs(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>>>>>> return ret;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>> +/* kill pending URBs */
> >>>>>>>> +void udl_kill_pending_urbs(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>> + struct udl_device *udl = to_udl(dev);
> >>>>>>>> + struct urb_node *unode;
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&udl->urbs.lock);
> >>>>>>>> + while (!list_empty(&udl->urbs.in_flight)) {
> >>>>>>>> + unode = list_first_entry(&udl->urbs.in_flight,
> >>>>>>>> + struct urb_node, entry);
> >>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&udl->urbs.lock);
> >>>>>>>> + usb_kill_urb(unode->urb);
> >>>>>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&udl->urbs.lock);
> >>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&udl->urbs.lock);
> >>>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> int udl_init(struct udl_device *udl)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> struct drm_device *dev = &udl->drm;
> >>>>>>>> @@ -335,6 +353,7 @@ int udl_drop_usb(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> struct udl_device *udl = to_udl(dev);
> >>>>>>>> + udl_kill_pending_urbs(dev);
> >>>>>>>> udl_free_urb_list(dev);
> >>>>>>>> put_device(udl->dmadev);
> >>>>>>>> udl->dmadev = NULL;
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_modeset.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_modeset.c
> >>>>>>>> index 50025606b6ad..169110d8fc2e 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_modeset.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_modeset.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -397,6 +397,8 @@ udl_simple_display_pipe_disable(struct drm_simple_display_pipe *pipe)
> >>>>>>>> struct urb *urb;
> >>>>>>>> char *buf;
> >>>>>>>> + udl_kill_pending_urbs(dev);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I already reviewed the patchset, but I have another comment. I think
> >>>>>>> we should only kill urbs from within the suspend handler. Same for the
> >>>>>>> call to the URB-sync function in patch 2.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This disable function is part of the regular modeset path. It's
> >>>>>>> probably not appropriate to outright remove pending URBs here. This
> >>>>>>> can lead to failed modesets, which would have succeeded otherwise.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, the device shall be turned off right after that point, so the
> >>>>>> all pending rendering makes little sense, no?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> udl_simple_display_pipe_disable() only disables the display, but not
> >>>>> the device. The kill operation here could potentially kill some valid
> >>>>> modeset operation that was still going on. And who knows what the
> >>>>> device state is after that.
> >>>>
> >>>> But udl_simple_display_pipe_disable() invokes UDL_BLANK_MODE_POWERDOWN
> >>>> command right after the place I've put udl_kill_pending_urbs(). So it
> >>>> shall blank / turn off the power (of the device, as it has a single
> >>>> output). And the URB completion doesn't do any error handling but
> >>>> just re-links URB chain and wakes up the queue. So killing a pending
> >>>> URB would nothing but canceling the in-flight URBs, and there should
> >>>> be no disturbance to the modeset operation itself, as the screen will
> >>>> be blanked immediately.
> >>>
> >>> The blank mode is essentially DPMS. It's unrelated to the device's
> >>> display mode.
> >>
> >> The function invokes the UDL_BLANK_MODE_POWERDOWN command; that will
> >> discard the whole rendered picture. And, the counterpart,
> >> udl_simple_display_pipe_enable(), re-initializes the mode fully from
> >> the scratch again.
> >> So what's the point to continue rendering that is immediately cleared
> >> (from the screen and from the device state)? Killing pending URBs
> >> doesn't influence on the internal (modeset) state of the driver.
> >
> > In anyway, this patchset seems problematic around the disconnection,
> > and maybe this particular one is no much improvement, better to drop
> > for now.
> >
> > I'll resubmit the v2 patch set including your resume fixes later.
>
> I already merged the patches before seeing the discussion on the rsp
> bug report. If you submit an update, maybe you can do so with Fixes
> tags?

Oh sure, will check then.

Takashi

Next message: Maxime Ripard: "Re: [PATCH v1 05/35] drm/connector: Add TV standard property"
Previous message: Jonathan Cameron: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers: iio: accel adxl312 and adxl314 support"
In reply to: Thomas Zimmermann: "Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/udl: Kill pending URBs at suspend and disconnect"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]