Commit 9b61db1a authored by Hans de Goede's avatar Hans de Goede

drm: gm12u320: Do not take a mutex from a wait_event condition

I made the condition of the wait_event_timeout call in
gm12u320_fb_update_work a helper which takes a mutex to make sure
that any writes to fb_update.run or fb_update.fb from other CPU cores
are seen before the check is done.

This is not necessary as the wait_event helpers contain the necessary
barriers for this themselves.

More over it is harmfull since by the time the check is done the task
is no longer in the TASK_RUNNING state and calling mutex_lock while not
in task-running is not allowed, leading to this warning when the kernel
is build with some extra locking checks enabled:

[11947.450011] do not call blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=2 set at
               [<00000000e4306de6>] prepare_to_wait_event+0x61/0x190

This commit fixes this by dropping the helper and simply directly
checking the condition (without unnecessary locking) in the
wait_event_timeout call.
Acked-by: default avatarSam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarHans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190811143725.5951-1-hdegoede@redhat.com
parent 4abfa2e4
......@@ -342,17 +342,6 @@ static void gm12u320_copy_fb_to_blocks(struct gm12u320_device *gm12u320)
mutex_unlock(&gm12u320->fb_update.lock);
}
static int gm12u320_fb_update_ready(struct gm12u320_device *gm12u320)
{
int ret;
mutex_lock(&gm12u320->fb_update.lock);
ret = !gm12u320->fb_update.run || gm12u320->fb_update.fb != NULL;
mutex_unlock(&gm12u320->fb_update.lock);
return ret;
}
static void gm12u320_fb_update_work(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct gm12u320_device *gm12u320 =
......@@ -426,7 +415,8 @@ static void gm12u320_fb_update_work(struct work_struct *work)
* switches back to showing its logo.
*/
wait_event_timeout(gm12u320->fb_update.waitq,
gm12u320_fb_update_ready(gm12u320),
!gm12u320->fb_update.run ||
gm12u320->fb_update.fb != NULL,
IDLE_TIMEOUT);
}
return;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment