On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:56:24PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:01:26PM -0700, Navare, Manasi wrote:
> > So basically we see this warning only in case of bigjoiner when
> > drm_atomic_check gets called without setting the state->allow_modeset flag.
>
> Considering the code is 'WARN(!state->allow_modeset, ...' that
> fact should be rather obvious.
>
> >
> > So do you think that in i915, in intel_atomic_check_bigjoiner() we should only
> > steal the crtc when allow_modeset flag is set in state?
>
> No. If you fully read drm_atomic_check_only() you will observe
> that it will reject any commit w/ allow_modeset==false which
> needs a modeset. And it does that before the WARN.
>
> So you're barking up the wrong tree here. The problem I think
> is that you're just computing requested_crtcs wrong.
So here in this case, requested CRTC = 0x1 since it requests modeset on CRTC 0
Now in teh atomic check, it steals the slave CRTC 1 and hence affected CRTC comes out
as 0x3 and hence the mismatch.
Now what is not clear to me is that if a full modeset was not required
why did i915 still steal that slave CRTC?
Manasi
>
> > If we add this check there then the affected crtc wont count the slave crtc
> > and we wont get this warning.
> >
> > Ville, Danvet?
> >
> > Manasi
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:35:09PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:14 AM Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 16:52:58 -0800
> > > > "Navare, Manasi" <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 10:42:23AM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:44:33 -0800
> > > > > > "Navare, Manasi" <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:47:44AM +0200, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 12:41:32 -0800
> > > > > > > > Manasi Navare <manasi.d.navare@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In case of a modeset where a mode gets split across mutiple CRTCs
> > > > > > > > > in the driver specific implementation (bigjoiner in i915) we wrongly count
> > > > > > > > > the affected CRTCs based on the drm_crtc_mask and indicate the stolen CRTC as
> > > > > > > > > an affected CRTC in atomic_check_only().
> > > > > > > > > This triggers a warning since affected CRTCs doent match requested CRTC.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To fix this in such bigjoiner configurations, we should only
> > > > > > > > > increment affected crtcs if that CRTC is enabled in UAPI not
> > > > > > > > > if it is just used internally in the driver to split the mode.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that makes sense to me. Stealing CRTCs that are not currently
> > > > > > > > used by the userspace (display server) should be ok, as long as that
> > > > > > > > is completely invisible to userspace: meaning that it does not cause
> > > > > > > > userspace to unexpectedly e.g. receive or miss per-crtc atomic
> > > > > > > > completion events.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes since we are only doing atomic_check_only() here, the stolen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the real not-test-only commit will follow if this test-only commit
> > > > > > succeeds, and keeping the guarantees for the real commit are important.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm well after the actual real commit, since the second crtc is stolen
> > > > > even though it is not being used for the display output, it is
> > > > > used for joiner so the uapi.enable will be true after the real commit.
> > > > >
> > > > > so actually the assertion would fail in this case.
> > > > >
> > > > > @Ville @Danvet any suggestions here in that case?
> > >
> > > That is very bad. We can't frob uapi state like that. I think that
> > > calls for even more checks to make sure kms drivers who try to play
> > > clever games don't get it wrong, so we probably need to check uapi
> > > enable and active state in another mask before/after ->atomic_check
> > > too. Or something like that.
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > that is not what I was talking about, but sounds like you found a
> > > > different problem. It seems like the problem you are talking about
> > > > would be guaranteed to be hit if bigjoiner was used. Have you not
> > > > tested this?
> > > >
> > > > However, I was talking about the real commit itself, not what happens
> > > > on commits after it, see below.
> > > >
> > > > > > > crtc is completely invisible to the userspace and hence that is
> > > > > > > indicated by uapi.enable which is not true for this stolen
> > > > > > > crtc. However if allow modeset flag set, then it will do a full
> > > > > > > modeset and indicate the uapi.enable for this stolen crtc as well
> > > > > > > since that cannot be used for other modeset requested by userspace.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can that also be asserted somehow, or does this already do that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not clear what you want the assertion for? Could you elaborate
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As assertion that when the real atomic commit happens and then
> > > > > > completion events are fired, they match exactly the affected crtcs mask.
> > > >
> > > > This is my concern and a question, although like I say below, only
> > > > tangential to this patch.
> > > >
> > > > However, as this patch aims to allow bigjoiner usage, naturally the
> > > > question will arise whether the completion events then match what
> > > > userspace expects or not. Userspace does not expect completion events
> > > > referring to the stolen CRTCs.
> > >
> > > Yeah we also must make sure that we don't send out events for these
> > > additional crtc in bigjoiner usage. Sounds like igt testing didn't
> > > catch this, I think we need a lot more igts here to make sure all
> > > these surprises don't happen.
> > >
> > > Plus maybe triple-checking that drm_atomic_uapi.c makes sure we can't
> > > send out events for stuff that userspace didn't ask for.
> > > -Daniel
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > I understand this may be off-topic for this particular patch, but since
> > > > > > we are discussing the topic, such checks would be really nice. I'm
> > > > > > curious if such checks already exist.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > pq
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c | 6 ++++--
> > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> > > > > > > > > index 5b4547e0f775..d7acd6bbd97e 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -1358,8 +1358,10 @@ int drm_atomic_check_only(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - for_each_new_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, new_crtc_state, i)
> > > > > > > > > - affected_crtc |= drm_crtc_mask(crtc);
> > > > > > > > > + for_each_new_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, new_crtc_state, i) {
> > > > > > > > > + if (new_crtc_state->enable)
> > > > > > > > > + affected_crtc |= drm_crtc_mask(crtc);
> > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > > > * For commits that allow modesets drivers can add other CRTCs to the
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > dri-devel mailing list
> > > > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daniel Vetter
> > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > _______________________________________________
> > dri-devel mailing list
> > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
