drm/i915/perf: always consider holding preemption a privileged op
The ordering of the checks in the existing code can lead to holding
preemption not being considered as privileged op.
Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com>
Fixes: 9cd20ef780
("drm/i915/perf: allow holding preemption on filtered ctx")
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20191111095308.2550-1-lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com
This commit is contained in:
parent
baea9ffe64
commit
0b0120d4c7
|
@ -3312,15 +3312,6 @@ i915_perf_open_ioctl_locked(struct i915_perf *perf,
|
|||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (props->hold_preemption) {
|
||||
if (!props->single_context) {
|
||||
DRM_DEBUG("preemption disable with no context\n");
|
||||
ret = -EINVAL;
|
||||
goto err;
|
||||
}
|
||||
privileged_op = true;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* On Haswell the OA unit supports clock gating off for a specific
|
||||
* context and in this mode there's no visibility of metrics for the
|
||||
|
@ -3340,12 +3331,21 @@ i915_perf_open_ioctl_locked(struct i915_perf *perf,
|
|||
* doesn't request global stream access (i.e. query based sampling
|
||||
* using MI_RECORD_PERF_COUNT.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (IS_HASWELL(perf->i915) && specific_ctx && !props->hold_preemption)
|
||||
if (IS_HASWELL(perf->i915) && specific_ctx)
|
||||
privileged_op = false;
|
||||
else if (IS_GEN(perf->i915, 12) && specific_ctx &&
|
||||
(props->sample_flags & SAMPLE_OA_REPORT) == 0)
|
||||
privileged_op = false;
|
||||
|
||||
if (props->hold_preemption) {
|
||||
if (!props->single_context) {
|
||||
DRM_DEBUG("preemption disable with no context\n");
|
||||
ret = -EINVAL;
|
||||
goto err;
|
||||
}
|
||||
privileged_op = true;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Similar to perf's kernel.perf_paranoid_cpu sysctl option
|
||||
* we check a dev.i915.perf_stream_paranoid sysctl option
|
||||
* to determine if it's ok to access system wide OA counters
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue