On 07/19/2018 12:47 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 2018-07-19 06:33 PM, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote: >> On 07/19/2018 11:39 AM, Ville Syrjälä wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote: >>>> Problem: >>>> FB is still not unpinned during the first run of amdgpu_bo_evict_vram >>>> and so it's left for the second run, but during second run the SDMA for >>>> moving buffer around already disabled and you have to do >>>> it with CPU, but FB is not in visible VRAM and hence the eviction >>>> failure >>>> leading later to resume failure. >>>> >>>> Fix: >>>> When DAL in use get a pointer to FB from crtc->primary->state rather >>>> then from crtc->primary which is not set for DAL since it supports >>>> atomic KMS. >>>> >>>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107065 >>>> Fixes e00fb85 drm: Stop updating plane->crtc/fb/old_fb on atomic drivers >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky at amd.com> >>>> --- >>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 3 ++- >>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c >>>> index 709e4a3..dd9ebf7 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c >>>> @@ -2642,7 +2642,8 @@ int amdgpu_device_suspend(struct drm_device >>>> *dev, bool suspend, bool fbcon) >>>>      /* unpin the front buffers and cursors */ >>>>      list_for_each_entry(crtc, &dev->mode_config.crtc_list, head) { >>>>          struct amdgpu_crtc *amdgpu_crtc = to_amdgpu_crtc(crtc); >>>> -       struct drm_framebuffer *fb = crtc->primary->fb; >>>> +        struct drm_framebuffer *fb = >>>> amdgpu_device_has_dc_support(adev) ? >>>> +                crtc->primary->state->fb : crtc->primary->fb; >>> So apparently you haven't yet turned off the planes here. If I'm >>> reading things right amdgpu_device_ip_suspend() should end up doing >>> that through drm_atomic_helper_suspend(). So it looks like like now >>> you'll end up unpinning the same bos twice. Doesn't that mess up >>> some kind of refcount or something? >> amdgpu_bo_unpin has a guard against that, amdgpu_bo_unreserve is less >> clear. > BO reservation shouldn't an issue here, BOs are only reserved for a > short time around (un)pinning them. > > >>> To me it would seem better to susped the display before trying >>> to evict the bos. >> Yea, i was aware of that and indeed DAL shouldn't rely on the code in >> amdgpu_device_suspend to unpin >> front buffer and cursor since the atomic helper should do it. Problem is >> that during amdgpu_device_ip_suspend >> the SDMA engine gets suspended too, so you have to embed another >> eviction in between, after display is suspended but before >> SDMA and this forces ordering between them which kind of already in >> place (amd_ip_block_type) but still it's an extra constrain. > Ville's point (which I basically agree with) is that the display > hardware should be turned off before evicting VRAM the first time, in > which case no second eviction should be necessary (for this purpose). Display HW is turned off as part of all IPs in a loop inside amdgpu_device_ip_suspend. Are you suggesting to extract the display HW turn off from inside amdgpu_device_ip_suspend and place it before the first call to amdgpu_bo_evict_vram ? Andrey > >
