On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 04:34:27PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> When the hangcheck handler was replaced by the DRM scheduler timeout
> handling we dropped the forward progress check, as this might allow
> clients to hog the GPU for a long time with a big job.
>
> It turns out that even reasonably well behaved clients like the
> Armada Xorg driver occasionally trip over the 500ms timeout. Bring
> back the forward progress check to get rid of the userspace regression.
>
> We would still like to fix userspace to submit smaller batches
> if possible, but that is for another day.
>
> Fixes: 6d7a20c07760 (drm/etnaviv: replace hangcheck with scheduler timeout)
> Signed-off-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.h | 3 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.h
> index dd430f0f8ff5..90f17ff7888e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gpu.h
> @@ -131,6 +131,9 @@ struct etnaviv_gpu {
> struct work_struct sync_point_work;
> int sync_point_event;
>
> + /* hang detection */
> + u32 hangcheck_dma_addr;
> +
> void __iomem *mmio;
> int irq;
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c
> index a74eb57af15b..50d6b88cb7aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c
> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
> #include "etnaviv_gem.h"
> #include "etnaviv_gpu.h"
> #include "etnaviv_sched.h"
> +#include "state.xml.h"
>
> static int etnaviv_job_hang_limit = 0;
> module_param_named(job_hang_limit, etnaviv_job_hang_limit, int , 0444);
> @@ -85,6 +86,29 @@ static void etnaviv_sched_timedout_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> {
> struct etnaviv_gem_submit *submit = to_etnaviv_submit(sched_job);
> struct etnaviv_gpu *gpu = submit->gpu;
> + u32 dma_addr;
> + int change;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the GPU managed to complete this jobs fence, the timout is
> + * spurious. Bail out.
> + */
> + if (fence_completed(gpu, submit->out_fence->seqno))
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the GPU is still making forward progress on the front-end (which
> + * should never loop) we shift out the timeout to give it a chance to
> + * finish the job.
> + */
> + dma_addr = gpu_read(gpu, VIVS_FE_DMA_ADDRESS);
> + change = dma_addr - gpu->hangcheck_dma_addr;
> + if (change < 0 || change > 16) {
> + gpu->hangcheck_dma_addr = dma_addr;
> + schedule_delayed_work(&sched_job->work_tdr,
> + sched_job->sched->timeout);
> + return;
> + }
Doesn't this patch, by ignoring the timeout, have the effect of completely
disabling the job timeout after its first instance of firing? From my
reading of the gpu scheduler code, this seems to be the case.
work_tdr is only armed when:
- a job completes and there is another job waiting (we're waiting for it...)
- a job is started, and is the first job on the ring (which won't happen)
- drm_sched_job_recovery() is called (which it isn't)
So, what would appear to happen is we timeout the job, but detect we
have progress, so the timeout is ignored. The timeout is not re-armed,
so if there was some progress and /then/ the GPU gets stuck, there is
nothing to re-check for progress or timeout.
I suspect that will completely defeat the timeout mechanism, since the
first (and only) timeout will always update the progress check and cause
the timeout to be ignored.
--
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
