On 22/06/2021 02:40, Chunyou Tang wrote: > Hi Steve, > I will send a new patch with suitable subject/commit message. > But I send a V3 or a new patch? Send a V3 - it is a new version of this patch. > I met a bug about the GPU,I have no idea about how to fix it, > If you can give me some suggestion,it is perfect. > > You can see such kernel log: > > Jun 20 10:20:13 icube kernel: [ 774.566760] mvp_gpu 0000:05:00.0: GPU > Fault 0x00000088 (SHAREABILITY_FAULT) at 0x000000000310fd00 Jun 20 > 10:20:13 icube kernel: [ 774.566764] mvp_gpu 0000:05:00.0: There were > multiple GPU faults - some have not been reported Jun 20 10:20:13 icube > kernel: [ 774.667542] mvp_gpu 0000:05:00.0: AS_ACTIVE bit stuck Jun 20 > 10:20:13 icube kernel: [ 774.767900] mvp_gpu 0000:05:00.0: AS_ACTIVE > bit stuck Jun 20 10:20:13 icube kernel: [ 774.868546] mvp_gpu > 0000:05:00.0: AS_ACTIVE bit stuck Jun 20 10:20:13 icube kernel: > [ 774.968910] mvp_gpu 0000:05:00.0: AS_ACTIVE bit stuck Jun 20 > 10:20:13 icube kernel: [ 775.069251] mvp_gpu 0000:05:00.0: AS_ACTIVE > bit stuck Jun 20 10:20:22 icube kernel: [ 783.693971] mvp_gpu > 0000:05:00.0: gpu sched timeout, js=1, config=0x7300, status=0x8, > head=0x362c900, tail=0x362c100, sched_job=000000003252fb84 > > In > https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20200510165538.19720-1-peron.clem@xxxxxxxxx/ > there had a same bug like mine,and I found you at the mail list,I don't > know how it fixed? The GPU_SHAREABILITY_FAULT error means that a cache line has been accessed both as shareable and non-shareable and therefore coherency cannot be guaranteed. Although the "multiple GPU faults" means that this may not be the underlying cause. The fact that your dmesg log has PCI style identifiers ("0000:05:00.0") suggests this is an unusual platform - I've not previously been aware of a Mali device behind PCI. Is this device working with the kbase/DDK proprietary driver? It would be worth looking at the kbase kernel code for the platform to see if there is anything special done for the platform. >From the dmesg logs all I can really tell is that the GPU seems unhappy about the memory system. Steve > I need your help! > > thinks very much! > > Chunyou > > 于 Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:45:20 +0100 > Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> 写道: > >> On 19/06/2021 04:18, Chunyou Tang wrote: >>> Hi Steve, >>> 1,Now I know how to write the subject >>> 2,the low 8 bits is the exception type in spec. >>> >>> and you can see prnfrost_exception_name() >>> >>> switch (exception_code) { >>> /* Non-Fault Status code */ >>> case 0x00: return "NOT_STARTED/IDLE/OK"; >>> case 0x01: return "DONE"; >>> case 0x02: return "INTERRUPTED"; >>> case 0x03: return "STOPPED"; >>> case 0x04: return "TERMINATED"; >>> case 0x08: return "ACTIVE"; >>> ........ >>> ........ >>> case 0xD8: return "ACCESS_FLAG"; >>> case 0xD9 ... 0xDF: return "ACCESS_FLAG"; >>> case 0xE0 ... 0xE7: return "ADDRESS_SIZE_FAULT"; >>> case 0xE8 ... 0xEF: return "MEMORY_ATTRIBUTES_FAULT"; >>> } >>> return "UNKNOWN"; >>> } >>> >>> the exception_code in case is only 8 bits,so if fault_status >>> in panfrost_gpu_irq_handler() don't & 0xFF,it can't get correct >>> exception reason,it will be always UNKNOWN. >> >> Yes, I'm happy with the change - I just need a patch that I can apply. >> At the moment this patch only changes the first '0x%08x' output rather >> than the call to panfrost_exception_name() as well. So we just need a >> patch which does: >> >> - fault_status & 0xFF, panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status), >> + fault_status, panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status & 0xFF), >> >> along with a suitable subject/commit message describing the change. If >> you can send me that I can apply it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Steve >> >> PS. Sorry for going round in circles here - I'm trying to help you get >> setup so you'll be able to contribute patches easily in future. An >> important part of that is ensuring you can send a properly formatted >> patch to the list. >> >> PPS. I'm still not receiving your emails directly. I don't think it's >> a problem at my end because I'm receiving other emails, but if you can >> somehow fix the problem you're likely to receive a faster response. >> >>> 于 Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:43:24 +0100 >>> Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> 写道: >>> >>>> On 17/06/2021 07:20, ChunyouTang wrote: >>>>> From: ChunyouTang <tangchunyou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> of the low 8 bits. >>>> >>>> Please don't split the subject like this. The first line of the >>>> commit should be a (very short) summary of the patch. Then a blank >>>> line and then a longer description of what the purpose of the >>>> patch is and why it's needed. >>>> >>>> Also you previously had this as part of a series (the first part >>>> adding the "& 0xFF" in the panfrost_exception_name() call). I'm not >>>> sure we need two patches for the single line, but as it stands this >>>> patch doesn't apply. >>>> >>>> Also I'm still not receiving any emails from you directly (only via >>>> the list), so it's possible I might have missed something you sent. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: ChunyouTang <tangchunyou@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c | 2 +- >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c index >>>>> 1fffb6a0b24f..d2d287bbf4e7 100644 --- >>>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c +++ >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gpu.c @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ static >>>>> irqreturn_t panfrost_gpu_irq_handler(int irq, void *data) address >>>>> |= gpu_read(pfdev, GPU_FAULT_ADDRESS_LO); >>>>> dev_warn(pfdev->dev, "GPU Fault 0x%08x (%s) at >>>>> 0x%016llx\n", >>>>> - fault_status & 0xFF, >>>>> panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status & 0xFF), >>>>> + fault_status, >>>>> panfrost_exception_name(pfdev, fault_status & 0xFF), address); >>>>> >>>>> if (state & GPU_IRQ_MULTIPLE_FAULT) >>>>> >>> >>> > >
