> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dixit, Ashutosh <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: July 12, 2022 3:48 PM
> To: Dong, Zhanjun <zhanjun.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Check for ct enabled while
> waiting for response
>
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 21:50:55 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 15:01:59 -0700, Zhanjun Dong wrote:
> > >
> > > We are seeing error message of "No response for request". Some cases
> > > happened while waiting for response and reset/suspend action was
> triggered.
> > > In this case, no response is not an error, active requests will be
> > > cancelled.
> > >
> > > This patch will handle this condition and change the error message
> > > into debug message.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zhanjun Dong <zhanjun.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c | 24
> > > ++++++++++++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > > index f01325cd1b62..f07a7666b1ad 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > > @@ -455,6 +455,7 @@ static int ct_write(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * wait_for_ct_request_update - Wait for CT request state update.
> > > + * @ct: pointer to CT
> > > * @req: pointer to pending request
> > > * @status: placeholder for status
> > > *
> > > @@ -467,9 +468,10 @@ static int ct_write(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > > * * 0 response received (status is valid)
> > > * * -ETIMEDOUT no response within hardcoded timeout
> > > */
> > > -static int wait_for_ct_request_update(struct ct_request *req, u32
> > > *status)
> > > +static int wait_for_ct_request_update(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > > +struct ct_request *req, u32 *status)
> > > {
> > > int err;
> > > + bool ct_enabled;
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Fast commands should complete in less than 10us, so sample
> > >quickly @@ -481,12 +483,15 @@ static int
> > >wait_for_ct_request_update(struct ct_request *req, u32 *status)
> > > #define GUC_CTB_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_SHORT_MS 10
> > > #define GUC_CTB_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_LONG_MS 1000
> > > #define done \
> > > - (FIELD_GET(GUC_HXG_MSG_0_ORIGIN, READ_ONCE(req->status)) ==
> \
> > > + (!(ct_enabled = intel_guc_ct_enabled(ct)) || \
> > > + FIELD_GET(GUC_HXG_MSG_0_ORIGIN, READ_ONCE(req->status)) ==
> \
> > > GUC_HXG_ORIGIN_GUC)
> > > err = wait_for_us(done, GUC_CTB_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_SHORT_MS);
> > > if (err)
> > > err = wait_for(done,
> GUC_CTB_RESPONSE_TIMEOUT_LONG_MS);
> > > #undef done
> > > + if (!ct_enabled)
> > > + err = -ECANCELED;
> >
> > Actually here's an even simpler suggestion. We could just do:
> >
> > if (!ct_enabled)
> > CT_DEBUG(ct, "Request %#x (fence %u) cancelled as CTB is
> disabled\n",
> >...);
> >
> > And return 0 as before. This way we won't have to make any changes in
> > either ct_send() or intel_guc_ct_send(). So intel_guc_ct_enabled()
> > just serves to get us out of the wait early and prevent the -ETIMEDOUT
> > return (and 0 return avoids all the error messages we are trying to
> eliminate).
>
> Actually will need to unlink the request too, so it will be something like:
>
> if (!ct_enabled) {
> CT_DEBUG(ct, "Request %#x (fence %u) cancelled as CTB is
> disabled\n", ...);
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&ct->requests.lock, flags);
> list_del(&request.link);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ct->requests.lock, flags);
> }
I agree, the caller function need the err is non-zero to know the request is not success, and unlink the request.
The caller function ct_send will do the unlink.
For the err code ECANCELED, while in intel_guc_ct_send, it returns ENODEV if ct is disabled. This patch will be changed to ENODEV to match it.
