Can you file a full bug report on the gitlab tracker?
FreeSync is still working on my Navi setups with this patch applied, and
this patch is essentially just a revert of another patch already (where
FreeSync worked before).
I can understand the v2 of this series causing issues, but the v1
shouldn't be - so I'd like to understand more about the setup where this
is causing issues - ASIC, OS, compositor, displays, dmesg log, X log, etc.
Regards,
Nicholas Kazlauskas
On 2020-05-05 1:03 p.m., Alex Deucher wrote:
Mario or Nick any thoughts?
Alex
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 1:35 PM Matt Coffin <mcoffin13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hey guys,
This is still an issue for me, and I'm still having to run a patch to
revert this as of 5.7-rc4. To avoid breaking a lot of people's Navi
setups in 5.7, is there any news on this? Has anyone else at the very
least been able to reproduce the problem?
It happens for me in every single program that mesa allows to utilize
variable refresh rates, and reverting it "fixes" the issue.
Cheers, and sorry for the extra email, just making sure this is still on
someone's radar,
Matt
On 4/14/20 5:32 PM, Matt Coffin wrote:
Hey everyone,
This patch broke variable refresh rate in games (all that I've tried so
far... Project CARS 2, DiRT Rally 2.0, Assetto Corsa Competizione) as
well as a simple freesync tester application.
FreeSync tester I've been using: https://github.com/Nixola/VRRTest
I'm not at all familiar with the page flipping code, so it would take me
a long time to find the *right* way to fix it, but does someone else see
why it would do that?
The symptom is that the refresh rate of the display constantly bounces
between the two ends of the FreeSync range (for me 40 -> 144), and the
game stutters like a madman.
Any help on where to start, ideas on how to fix it (other than just
revert this commit, which I've done in the interim), or alternative
patches would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance for the work/help,
Matt
On 3/13/20 8:42 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 2020-03-13 1:35 p.m., Kazlauskas, Nicholas wrote:
On 2020-03-12 10:32 a.m., Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 4:21 PM Mario Kleiner
<mario.kleiner.de@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Commit '16f17eda8bad ("drm/amd/display: Send vblank and user
events at vsartup for DCN")' introduces a new way of pageflip
completion handling for DCN, and some trouble.
The current implementation introduces a race condition, which
can cause pageflip completion events to be sent out one vblank
too early, thereby confusing userspace and causing flicker:
prepare_flip_isr():
1. Pageflip programming takes the ddev->event_lock.
2. Sets acrtc->pflip_status == AMDGPU_FLIP_SUBMITTED
3. Releases ddev->event_lock.
--> Deadline for surface address regs double-buffering passes on
target pipe.
4. dc_commit_updates_for_stream() MMIO programs the new pageflip
into hw, but too late for current vblank.
=> pflip_status == AMDGPU_FLIP_SUBMITTED, but flip won't complete
in current vblank due to missing the double-buffering deadline
by a tiny bit.
5. VSTARTUP trigger point in vblank is reached, VSTARTUP irq fires,
dm_dcn_crtc_high_irq() gets called.
6. Detects pflip_status == AMDGPU_FLIP_SUBMITTED and assumes the
pageflip has been completed/will complete in this vblank and
sends out pageflip completion event to userspace and resets
pflip_status = AMDGPU_FLIP_NONE.
=> Flip completion event sent out one vblank too early.
This behaviour has been observed during my testing with measurement
hardware a couple of time.
The commit message says that the extra flip event code was added to
dm_dcn_crtc_high_irq() to prevent missing to send out pageflip events
in case the pflip irq doesn't fire, because the "DCH HUBP" component
is clock gated and doesn't fire pflip irqs in that state. Also that
this clock gating may happen if no planes are active. According to
Nicholas, the clock gating can also happen if psr is active, and the
gating is controlled independently by the hardware, so difficult to
detect if and when the completion code in above commit is needed.
This patch tries the following solution: It only executes the extra
pflip
completion code in dm_dcn_crtc_high_irq() iff the hardware reports
that there aren't any surface updated pending in the double-buffered
surface scanout address registers. Otherwise it leaves pflip completion
to the pflip irq handler, for a more race-free experience.
This would only guard against the order of events mentioned above.
If Step 5 (VSTARTUP trigger) happens before step 4 then this won't help
at all, because 1-3 + 5 might happen even without the hw being
programmed
at all, ie. no surface update pending because none yet programmed
into hw.
Therefore this patch also changes locking in amdgpu_dm_commit_planes(),
so that prepare_flip_isr() and dc_commit_updates_for_stream() are done
under event_lock protection within the same critical section.
v2: Take Nicholas comments into account, try a different solution.
Lightly tested on Polaris (locking) and Raven (the whole DCN stuff).
Seems to work without causing obvious new trouble.
Nick, any comments on this? Can we get this committed or do you think
it needs additional rework?
Thanks,
Alex
Hi Alex, Mario,
This might be a little strange, but if we want to get this in as a fix
for regressions caused by the original vblank and user events at
vstartup patch then I'm actually going to give my reviewed by on the
*v1* of this patch (but not this v2):
Reviewed-by: Nicholas Kazlauskas <nicholas.kazlauskas@xxxxxxx>
You can feel free to apply that one.
Reason 1: After having thought about it some more I don't think we
enable anything today that has hubp powered down at the same time we
expect to be waiting for a flip - eg. DMCU powering down HUBP during PSR
entry. Static screen interrupt should happen after that flip finishes I
think.
The CRTC can still be powered on with zero planes, and I don't think any
userspace explicitly asks for vblank events in this case but it doesn't
hurt to have the check.
Reason 2: This new patch will need much more thorough testing from side
to fully understand the consequences of locking the entire DC commit
sequence. For just a page flip that sounds fine, but for anything more
than (eg. full updates, modesets, etc) I don't think we want to be
disabling interrupts for potentially many milliseconds.
Ah! I was wondering where the attached splat comes from, but I think
this explains it: With this patch amdgpu_dm_commit_planes keeps the
pcrtc->dev->event_lock spinlock locked while calling
dc_commit_updates_for_stream, which ends up calling
smu_set_display_count, which tries to lock a mutex.
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
