On 3/1/2022 02:50, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 28/02/2022 18:32, John Harrison wrote:
On 2/28/2022 08:11, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 25/02/2022 17:39, John Harrison wrote:
On 2/25/2022 09:06, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 24/02/2022 19:19, John Harrison wrote:
[snip]
./gt/uc/intel_guc_fwif.h: u32 execution_quantum;
./gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c: desc->execution_quantum =
engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms * 1000;
./gt/intel_engine_types.h: unsigned long timeslice_duration_ms;
timeslice_store/preempt_timeout_store:
err = kstrtoull(buf, 0, &duration);
So both kconfig and sysfs can already overflow GuC, not only
because of tick conversion internally but because at backend
level nothing was done for assigning 64-bit into 32-bit. Or
I failed to find where it is handled.
That's why I'm adding this range check to make sure we don't
allow overflows.
Yes and no, this fixes it, but the first bug was not only due
GuC internal tick conversion. It was present ever since the
u64 from i915 was shoved into u32 sent to GuC. So even if GuC
used the value without additional multiplication, bug was be
there. My point being when GuC backend was added timeout_ms
values should have been limited/clamped to U32_MAX. The tick
discovery is additional limit on top.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that the truncation wasn't
noticed until I actually tried using very long timeouts to
debug a particular problem. Now that it is noticed, we need
some method of range checking and this simple clamp solves all
the truncation problems.
Agreed in principle, just please mention in the commit message
all aspects of the problem.
I think we can get away without a Fixes: tag since it requires
user fiddling to break things in unexpected ways.
I would though put in a code a clamping which expresses both,
something like min(u32, ..GUC LIMIT..). So the full story is
documented forever. Or "if > u32 || > ..GUC LIMIT..) return
-EINVAL". Just in case GuC limit one day changes but u32 stays.
Perhaps internal ticks go away or anything and we are left with
plain 1:1 millisecond relationship.
Can certainly add a comment along the lines of "GuC API only
takes a 32bit field but that is further reduced to GUC_LIMIT due
to internal calculations which would otherwise overflow".
But if the GuC limit is > u32 then, by definition, that means the
GuC API has changed to take a u64 instead of a u32. So there will
no u32 truncation any more. So I'm not seeing a need to
explicitly test the integer size when the value check covers that.
Hmm I was thinking if the internal conversion in the GuC fw
changes so that GUC_POLICY_MAX_PREEMPT_TIMEOUT_MS goes above u32,
then to be extra safe by documenting in code there is the
additional limit of the data structure field. Say the field was
changed to take some unit larger than a millisecond. Then the
check against the GuC MAX limit define would not be enough, unless
that would account both for internal implementation and u32 in the
protocol. Maybe that is overdefensive but I don't see that it
harms. 50-50, but it's do it once and forget so I'd do it.
Huh?
How can the limit be greater than a u32 if the interface only takes
a u32? By definition the limit would be clamped to u32 size.
If you mean that the GuC policy is in different units and those
units might not overflow but ms units do, then actually that is
already the case. The GuC works in us not ms. That's part of why
the wrap around is so low, we have to multiply by 1000 before
sending to GuC. However, that is actually irrelevant because the
comparison is being done on the i915 side in i915's units. We have
to scale the GuC limit to match what i915 is using. And the i915
side is u64 so if the scaling to i915 numbers overflows a u32 then
who cares because that comparison can be done at 64 bits wide.
If the units change then that is a backwards breaking API change
that will require a manual driver code update. You can't just
recompile with a new header and magically get an ms to us or ms to
s conversion in your a = b assignment. The code will need to be
changed to do the new unit conversion (note we already convert from
ms to us, the GuC API is all expressed in us). And that code change
will mean having to revisit any and all scaling, type conversions,
etc. I.e. any pre-existing checks will not necessarily be valid and
will need to be re-visted anyway. But as above, any scaling to GuC
units has to be incorporated into the limit already because
otherwise the limit would not fit in the GuC's own API.
Yes I get that, I was just worried that u32 field in the protocol
and GUC_POLICY_MAX_EXEC_QUANTUM_MS defines are separate in the
source code and then how to protect against forgetting to update
both in sync.
Like if the protocol was changed to take nanoseconds, and firmware
implementation changed to support the full range, but define
left/forgotten at 100s. That would then overflow u32.
Huh? If the API was updated to 'support the full range' then how can
you get overflow by forgetting to update the limit? You could get
unnecessary clamping, which hopefully would be noticed by whoever is
testing the new API and/or whoever requested the change. But you
can't get u32 overflow errors if all the code has been updated to u64.
1)
Change the protocol so that "u32 desc->execution_quantum" now takes
nano seconds.
This now makes the maximum time 4.29.. seconds.
You seriously think this is likely to happen?
That the GuC people would force an API change on us that is completely
backwards from what we have been asking? And that such a massive
backwards step would not get implemented correctly because someone
didn't notice just how huge an impact it was?
2)
Forget to update GUC_POLICY_MAX_EXEC_QUANTUM_MS from 100s, since for
instance that part at that point still not part of the interface
contract.
There is zero chance of the us -> ns change occurring in the foreseeable
future whereas the expectation is to have the limits be part of the spec
in the next firmware release. So this scenario is just not going to
happen. And as above, it would be such a big change with such a huge
amount of push back and discussion going on that it would be impossible
for the limit update to be missed/forgotten.
3)
User passes in 5 seconds.
Clamping check says all is good.
"engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms > GUC_POLICY_MAX_EXEC_QUANTUM_MS"
4)
Assignment was updated:
gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c:
desc->execution_quantum = engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms * 1e6;
But someone did not realize field is u32.
desc->execution_quantum = engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms * 1e6;
Defensive solution:
if (overflows_type(engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms * 1e6,
desc->execution_quantum))
drm_WARN_ON...
All you are saying is that bugs can happen. The above is just one more
place to have a bug.
The purpose of the limit is to take into account all reasons for there
being a limit. Having a bunch of different tests that are all testing
the same thing is pointless.
John.
desc->execution_quantum = engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms * 1e6;
Regards,
Tvrtko
John.
Regards,
Tvrtko
John.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/sysfs_engines.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fwif.h | 9 +++++++++
3 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
index e53008b4dd05..2a1e9f36e6f5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
@@ -389,6 +389,21 @@ static int intel_engine_setup(struct
intel_gt *gt, enum intel_engine_id id,
if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) == 12 && engine->class ==
RENDER_CLASS)
engine->props.preempt_timeout_ms = 0;
+ /* Cap timeouts to prevent overflow inside GuC */
+ if (intel_guc_submission_is_wanted(>->uc.guc)) {
+ if (engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms >
GUC_POLICY_MAX_EXEC_QUANTUM_MS) {
Hm "wanted".. There's been too much back and forth on the
GuC load options over the years to keep track..
intel_engine_uses_guc work sounds like would work and read
nicer.
I'm not adding a new feature check here. I'm just using the
existing one. If we want to rename it yet again then that
would be a different patch set.
$ grep intel_engine_uses_guc . -rl
./i915_perf.c
./i915_request.c
./selftests/intel_scheduler_helpers.c
./gem/i915_gem_context.c
./gt/intel_context.c
./gt/intel_engine.h
./gt/intel_engine_cs.c
./gt/intel_engine_heartbeat.c
./gt/intel_engine_pm.c
./gt/intel_reset.c
./gt/intel_lrc.c
./gt/selftest_context.c
./gt/selftest_engine_pm.c
./gt/selftest_hangcheck.c
./gt/selftest_mocs.c
./gt/selftest_workarounds.c
Sounds better to me than intel_guc_submission_is_wanted. What
does the reader know whether "is wanted" translates to "is
actually used". Shrug on "is wanted".
Yes, but isn't '_uses' the one that hits a BUG_ON if you call
it too early in the boot up sequence? I never understood why
that was necessary or why we need so many different ways to ask
the same question. But this version already exists and
definitely works without hitting any explosions.
No idea if it causes a bug on, doesn't in the helper itself so
maybe you are saying it is called too early? Might be.. I think
over time the nice idea we had that "setup" and "init" phases of
engine setup clearly separated got destroyed a bit. There would
always be an option to move this clamping in a later phase, once
the submission method is known. One could argue that if the
submission method is not yet known at this point, it is even
wrong to clamp based on something which will only be decided
later. Because:
int intel_engines_init(struct intel_gt *gt)
{
int (*setup)(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
enum intel_engine_id id;
int err;
if (intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(>->uc)) {
gt->submission_method = INTEL_SUBMISSION_GUC;
So this uses "uses", not "wanted". Presumably the point for
having "wanted" and "uses" is that they can disagree, in which
case if you clamp early based on "wanted" that suggests it could
be wrong.
Okay, looks like I was getting confused with intel_guc_is_used().
That one blows up if called too early.
I'll change it to _uses_ and repost, then.
Check that it isn't called too early, before gt->submission_setup
is set.
Obviously it is because it blew up. But I am not re-writing the
driver start up sequence just to use the word 'use' instead of 'want'.
And limit to class instead of applying to all engines looks
like a miss.
As per follow up email, the class limit is not applied here.
+ drm_info(&engine->i915->drm, "Warning, clamping timeslice
duration to %d to prevent possibly overflow\n",
+ GUC_POLICY_MAX_EXEC_QUANTUM_MS);
+ engine->props.timeslice_duration_ms =
GUC_POLICY_MAX_EXEC_QUANTUM_MS;
I am not sure logging such message during driver load is
useful. Sounds more like a confused driver which starts with
one value and then overrides itself. I'd just silently set
the value appropriate for the active backend. Preemption
timeout kconfig text already documents the fact timeouts can
get overriden at runtime depending on platform+engine. So
maybe just add same text to timeslice kconfig.
The point is to make people aware if they compile with
unsupported config options. As far as I know, there is no way
to apply range checking or other limits to config defines.
Which means that a user would silently get unwanted
behaviour. That seems like a bad thing to me. If the driver
is confused because the user built it in a confused manner
then we should let them know.
Okay, but I think make it notice low level.
Also consider in patch 3/3 when you triple it, and then clamp
back down here. That's even more confused state since tripling
gets nerfed. I think that's also an argument to always account
preempt timeout in heartbeat interval calculation. Haven't got
to your reply on 2/3 yet though..
That sounds like even more reason to make sure the warning gets
seen. The more complex the system and the more chances there
are to get it wrong, the more important it is to have a nice
easy to see and understand notification that it did go wrong.
I did not disagree, just said make it notice, one level higher
than info! :)
But then it won't appear unless you have explicitly said an
elevated debug level. Whereas info appears in dmesg by default
(but is still not classed as an error by CI and such).
Notice is higher than info! :) If info appears by default so does
notice, warning, err, etc...
Doh! I could have sworn those were the other way around.
Okay. Will update to use notice :).
#define KERN_EMERG KERN_SOH "0" /* system is unusable */
#define KERN_ALERT KERN_SOH "1" /* action must be taken
immediately */
#define KERN_CRIT KERN_SOH "2" /* critical conditions */
#define KERN_ERR KERN_SOH "3" /* error conditions */
#define KERN_WARNING KERN_SOH "4" /* warning conditions */
#define KERN_NOTICE KERN_SOH "5" /* normal but significant
condition */
#define KERN_INFO KERN_SOH "6" /* informational */
#define KERN_DEBUG KERN_SOH "7" /* debug-level messages */
But also think how, if we agree to go with tripling, that you'd
have to consider that in the sysfs store when hearbeat timeout
is written, to consider whether or not to triple and error out
if preemption timeout is over limit.
I see this as just setting the default values. If an end user is
explicitly overriding the defaults then we should obey what they
have requested. If they are changing the heartbeat interval then
they can also change the pre-emption timeout appropriately.
Question is can they unknowingly and without any feedback
configure a much worse state than they expect? Like when they set
heartbeats up to some value, everything is configured as you
intended - but if you go over a certain hidden limit the overall
scheme degrades in some way. What is the failure mode here if you
silently let them do that?
You can always configure things to be worse than expected. If you
don't understand what you are doing then any control can make
things worse instead of better. The assumption is that if a user is
savvy enough to be writing to sysfs overrides of kernel parameters
then they know what those parameters are and what their
implications are. If they want to set a very short heartbeat with a
very long pre-emption timeout then its their problem if they hit
frequent TDRs. Conversely, if they want to set a very long
heartbeat with a very short pre-emption timeout then its still
their problem if they hit frequent TDRs.
But if the user explicitly requests a heartbeat period of 3s and a
pre-emption timeout of 2s and the i915 arbitrarily splats their 2s
and makes it 9s then that is wrong.
We should give the driver defaults that work for the majority of
users and then let the minority specify exactly what they need.
And there is no silent or hidden limit. If the user specifies a
value too large then they will get -EINVAL. Nothing hidden or
silent about that. Any other values are legal and the behaviour
will be whatever has been requested.
John.
Regards,
Tvrtko
