On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 16:06:28 +0200 Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 14.07.2022 14:06, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > From: Prathap Kumar Valsan <prathap.kumar.valsan@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Add routines to interface with GuC firmware for TLB invalidation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Prathap Kumar Valsan <prathap.kumar.valsan@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Bruce Chang <yu.bruce.chang@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > To avoid mailbombing on a large number of people, only mailing lists were C/C on the cover. > > See [PATCH v2 00/21] at: https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1657800199.git.mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_actions_abi.h | 35 +++++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h | 13 +++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c | 24 ++++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fwif.h | 6 ++ > > .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++- > > 6 files changed, 253 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_actions_abi.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_actions_abi.h > > index 4ef9990ed7f8..2e39d8df4c82 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_actions_abi.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/abi/guc_actions_abi.h > > @@ -134,6 +134,10 @@ enum intel_guc_action { > > INTEL_GUC_ACTION_REGISTER_CONTEXT_MULTI_LRC = 0x4601, > > INTEL_GUC_ACTION_CLIENT_SOFT_RESET = 0x5507, > > INTEL_GUC_ACTION_SET_ENG_UTIL_BUFF = 0x550A, > > + INTEL_GUC_ACTION_NOTIFY_MEMORY_CAT_ERROR = 0x6000, > > should this be part of this patch ? No, I'll drop... > > > + INTEL_GUC_ACTION_PAGE_FAULT_NOTIFICATION = 0x6001, ... and also drop this one. > > + INTEL_GUC_ACTION_TLB_INVALIDATION = 0x7000, > > + INTEL_GUC_ACTION_TLB_INVALIDATION_DONE = 0x7001, > > can we document layout of these actions ? Where should we document it? At intel_guc_invalidate_tlb_guc() function & friends, or are you thinking on something else, at this header file? > > > INTEL_GUC_ACTION_STATE_CAPTURE_NOTIFICATION = 0x8002, > > INTEL_GUC_ACTION_NOTIFY_FLUSH_LOG_BUFFER_TO_FILE = 0x8003, > > INTEL_GUC_ACTION_NOTIFY_CRASH_DUMP_POSTED = 0x8004, > > @@ -177,4 +181,35 @@ enum intel_guc_state_capture_event_status { > > > > #define INTEL_GUC_STATE_CAPTURE_EVENT_STATUS_MASK 0x000000FF > > > > +#define INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_TYPE_SHIFT 0 > > +#define INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_MODE_SHIFT 8 > > can we stop using SHIFT-based definitions and start using MASK-based > instead ? then we will be able to use FIELD_PREP/GET like we do for i915_reg Ok. > > > +/* Flush PPC or SMRO caches along with TLB invalidation request */ > > +#define INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_FLUSH_CACHE (1 << 31) > > + > > +enum intel_guc_tlb_invalidation_type { > > + INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_GUC = 0x3, > > +}; > > + > > +/* > > + * 0: Heavy mode of Invalidation: > > + * The pipeline of the engine(s) for which the invalidation is targeted to is > > + * blocked, and all the in-flight transactions are guaranteed to be Globally > > + * Observed before completing the TLB invalidation > > + * 1: Lite mode of Invalidation: > > + * TLBs of the targeted engine(s) are immediately invalidated. > > + * In-flight transactions are NOT guaranteed to be Globally Observed before > > + * completing TLB invalidation. > > + * Light Invalidation Mode is to be used only when > > + * it can be guaranteed (by SW) that the address translations remain invariant > > + * for the in-flight transactions across the TLB invalidation. In other words, > > + * this mode can be used when the TLB invalidation is intended to clear out the > > + * stale cached translations that are no longer in use. Light Invalidation Mode > > + * is much faster than the Heavy Invalidation Mode, as it does not wait for the > > + * in-flight transactions to be GOd. > > + */ > > either drop this comment or squash with patch 10/21 to fix it Ok. > > > +enum intel_guc_tlb_inval_mode { > > + INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_MODE_HEAVY = 0x0, > > + INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_MODE_LITE = 0x1, > > +}; > > + > > #endif /* _ABI_GUC_ACTIONS_ABI_H */ > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c > > index 2706a8c65090..5c59f9b144a3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.c > > @@ -855,6 +855,96 @@ int intel_guc_self_cfg64(struct intel_guc *guc, u16 key, u64 value) > > return __guc_self_cfg(guc, key, 2, value); > > } > > > > +static int guc_send_invalidate_tlb(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 *action, u32 size) > > nit: maybe since MMIO TLB has moved to dedicated file, we can do the > same with GUC TLB code like "intel_guc_tlb.c" ? I'll add a patch at the end of this series moving the code. > > +{ > > + struct intel_guc_tlb_wait _wq, *wq = &_wq; > > + DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_function); > > + int err = 0; > > + u32 seqno; > > + > > + init_waitqueue_head(&_wq.wq); > > + > > + if (xa_alloc_cyclic_irq(&guc->tlb_lookup, &seqno, wq, > > + xa_limit_32b, &guc->next_seqno, > > + GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN) < 0) { > > + /* Under severe memory pressure? Serialise TLB allocations */ > > + xa_lock_irq(&guc->tlb_lookup); > > + wq = xa_load(&guc->tlb_lookup, guc->serial_slot); > > + wait_event_lock_irq(wq->wq, > > + !READ_ONCE(wq->status), > > + guc->tlb_lookup.xa_lock); > > + /* > > + * Update wq->status under lock to ensure only one waiter can > > + * issue the tlb invalidation command using the serial slot at a > > + * time. The condition is set to false before releasing the lock > > + * so that other caller continue to wait until woken up again. > > + */ > > + wq->status = 1; > > + xa_unlock_irq(&guc->tlb_lookup); > > + > > + seqno = guc->serial_slot; > > + } > > + > > + action[1] = seqno; > > it's sad that we need to update in blind this action message > > if you don't want to expose seqno allocation in a helper function that > each caller would use, then maybe assert that this action message is > expected one I'll encapsulate the code that allocates the seqno on a new helper function: static int intel_guc_alloc_tlb_seqno(struct intel_guc *guc, struct intel_guc_tlb_wait *wq) { u32 seqno; if (xa_alloc_cyclic_irq(&guc->tlb_lookup, &seqno, wq, xa_limit_32b, &guc->next_seqno, GFP_ATOMIC | __GFP_NOWARN) >= 0) return seqno; /* Under severe memory pressure? Serialise TLB allocations */ xa_lock_irq(&guc->tlb_lookup); wq = xa_load(&guc->tlb_lookup, guc->serial_slot); wait_event_lock_irq(wq->wq, !READ_ONCE(wq->status), guc->tlb_lookup.xa_lock); /* * Update wq->status under lock to ensure only one waiter can * issue the TLB invalidation command using the serial slot at a * time. The condition is set to false before releasing the lock * so that other caller continue to wait until woken up again. */ wq->status = 1; xa_unlock_irq(&guc->tlb_lookup); return guc->serial_slot; } This should improve the readability of the invalidate function: static int guc_send_invalidate_tlb(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 *action, u32 size) { struct intel_guc_tlb_wait _wq, *wq = &_wq; DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait, woken_wake_function); int err = 0; u32 seqno; init_waitqueue_head(&_wq.wq); seqno = intel_guc_alloc_tlb_seqno(guc, wq); action[1] = seqno; ... > > + > > + add_wait_queue(&wq->wq, &wait); > > + > > + err = intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, size, G2H_LEN_DW_INVALIDATE_TLB, true); > > + if (err) { > > + /* > > + * XXX: Failure of tlb invalidation is critical and would > > s/tlb/TLB > > > + * warrant a gt reset. > > + */ > > + goto out; > > + } > > +/* > > + * GuC has a timeout of 1ms for a tlb invalidation response from GAM. On a > > ditto > > > + * timeout GuC drops the request and has no mechanism to notify the host about > > + * the timeout. So keep a larger timeout that accounts for this individual > > + * timeout and max number of outstanding invalidation requests that can be > > + * queued in CT buffer. > > + */ > > +#define OUTSTANDING_GUC_TIMEOUT_PERIOD (HZ) > > + if (!wait_woken(&wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, > > IIRC there was some discussion if we can rely on this in our scenario > can you sync with Chris on that? I'll check. > > > + OUTSTANDING_GUC_TIMEOUT_PERIOD)) { > > + /* > > + * XXX: Failure of tlb invalidation is critical and would > > s/tlb/TLB > > > + * warrant a gt reset. > > + */ > > + drm_err(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm, > > + "tlb invalidation response timed out for seqno %u\n", seqno); > > s/tlb/TLB > > btw, should we care here about G2H_LEN_DW_INVALIDATE_TLB space that we > reserved in send_busy_loop() ? Good question. The logic at intel_guc_tlb_invalidation_done() has something to handle timeouts: /* We received a response after the waiting task did exit with a timeout */ if (unlikely(!wait)) drm_err(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm, "Stale TLB invalidation response with seqno %d\n", seqno); It sounds to me that this is already covered there. > > > + err = -ETIME; > > + } > > +out: > > + remove_wait_queue(&wq->wq, &wait); > > + if (seqno != guc->serial_slot) > > + xa_erase_irq(&guc->tlb_lookup, seqno); > > + > > + return err; > > +} > > + > > +/* > > + * Guc TLB Invalidation: Invalidate the TLB's of GuC itself. > > + */ > > +int intel_guc_invalidate_tlb_guc(struct intel_guc *guc, > > + enum intel_guc_tlb_inval_mode mode) > > +{ > > + u32 action[] = { > > + INTEL_GUC_ACTION_TLB_INVALIDATION, > > + 0, > > + INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_GUC << INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_TYPE_SHIFT | > > + mode << INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_MODE_SHIFT | > > + INTEL_GUC_TLB_INVAL_FLUSH_CACHE, > > + }; > > + > > + if (!INTEL_GUC_SUPPORTS_TLB_INVALIDATION(guc)) { > > + DRM_ERROR("Tlb invalidation: Operation not supported in this platform!\n"); > > you should use drm_err() instead Ok. > but wondering if maybe this should be treated as a coding error (and > then use GEM_BUG/WARN_ON instead) but then not sure how to interpret the > check for the intel_guc_ct_enabled() embedded in above macro ... > note that intel_guc_ct_send() will return -ENODEV if CTB is down Good point. Still, I don't think that the driver should crash with GEM_BUG/WARN_ON() if TLB invalidation is not available, as this may cause regressions. I mean, assuming that someone is currently using the driver on a firmware that doesn't support such actions, after this patch, the driver will stop working for him. So, I think the right thing to do is to just report it as an error. > > + return 0; > > + } > > + > > + return guc_send_invalidate_tlb(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action)); > > +} > > + > > /** > > * intel_guc_load_status - dump information about GuC load status > > * @guc: the GuC > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h > > index d0d99f178f2d..f82a121b0838 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h > > @@ -77,6 +77,10 @@ struct intel_guc { > > atomic_t outstanding_submission_g2h; > > > > /** @interrupts: pointers to GuC interrupt-managing functions. */ > > + struct xarray tlb_lookup; > > + u32 serial_slot; > > + u32 next_seqno; > > wrong place - above kernel-doc is for the struct below Ok. > > + > > struct { > > void (*reset)(struct intel_guc *guc); > > void (*enable)(struct intel_guc *guc); > > @@ -248,6 +252,11 @@ struct intel_guc { > > #endif > > }; > > > > +struct intel_guc_tlb_wait { > > + struct wait_queue_head wq; > > + u8 status; > > +} __aligned(4); > > + > > static inline struct intel_guc *log_to_guc(struct intel_guc_log *log) > > { > > return container_of(log, struct intel_guc, log); > > @@ -363,6 +372,9 @@ int intel_guc_allocate_and_map_vma(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 size, > > int intel_guc_self_cfg32(struct intel_guc *guc, u16 key, u32 value); > > int intel_guc_self_cfg64(struct intel_guc *guc, u16 key, u64 value); > > > > +int intel_guc_invalidate_tlb_guc(struct intel_guc *guc, > > + enum intel_guc_tlb_inval_mode mode); > > + > > static inline bool intel_guc_is_supported(struct intel_guc *guc) > > { > > return intel_uc_fw_is_supported(&guc->fw); > > @@ -440,6 +452,7 @@ int intel_guc_engine_failure_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc, > > const u32 *msg, u32 len); > > int intel_guc_error_capture_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc, > > const u32 *msg, u32 len); > > +void intel_guc_tlb_invalidation_done(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 seqno); > > > > struct intel_engine_cs * > > intel_guc_lookup_engine(struct intel_guc *guc, u8 guc_class, u8 instance); > > 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..c1ce542b7855 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c > > @@ -1023,7 +1023,7 @@ static int ct_process_request(struct intel_guc_ct *ct, struct ct_incoming_msg *r > > return 0; > > } > > > > -static bool ct_process_incoming_requests(struct intel_guc_ct *ct) > > +static bool ct_process_incoming_requests(struct intel_guc_ct *ct, struct list_head *incoming) > > { > > unsigned long flags; > > struct ct_incoming_msg *request; > > @@ -1031,11 +1031,11 @@ static bool ct_process_incoming_requests(struct intel_guc_ct *ct) > > int err; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&ct->requests.lock, flags); > > - request = list_first_entry_or_null(&ct->requests.incoming, > > + request = list_first_entry_or_null(incoming, > > struct ct_incoming_msg, link); > > if (request) > > list_del(&request->link); > > - done = !!list_empty(&ct->requests.incoming); > > + done = !!list_empty(incoming); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ct->requests.lock, flags); > > > > if (!request) > > @@ -1058,7 +1058,7 @@ static void ct_incoming_request_worker_func(struct work_struct *w) > > bool done; > > > > do { > > - done = ct_process_incoming_requests(ct); > > + done = ct_process_incoming_requests(ct, &ct->requests.incoming); > > } while (!done); > > } > > > > @@ -1078,14 +1078,30 @@ static int ct_handle_event(struct intel_guc_ct *ct, struct ct_incoming_msg *requ > > switch (action) { > > case INTEL_GUC_ACTION_SCHED_CONTEXT_MODE_DONE: > > case INTEL_GUC_ACTION_DEREGISTER_CONTEXT_DONE: > > + case INTEL_GUC_ACTION_TLB_INVALIDATION_DONE: > > g2h_release_space(ct, request->size); > > } > > + /* Handle tlb invalidation response in interrupt context */ > > since it breaks layering, can you add more comments why this is done in > such way ? > > > + if (action == INTEL_GUC_ACTION_TLB_INVALIDATION_DONE) { I'll improve the comment here. I guess something like this would be enough: /* * Handle tlb invalidation response in interrupt context * * As TLB invalidation is needed to avoid leaking data, wait until * TLB invalidation is completed before returning. */ > > + const u32 *payload; > > + u32 hxg_len, len; > > + > > + hxg_len = request->size - GUC_CTB_MSG_MIN_LEN; > > + len = hxg_len - GUC_HXG_MSG_MIN_LEN; > > + if (unlikely(len < 1)) > > + return -EPROTO; > > + payload = &hxg[GUC_HXG_MSG_MIN_LEN]; > > if we still need to handle this at this level, can we at least move this > message decomposition to the handler (in other words: just pass hxg > pointer instead of single dword payload) Yeah, makes sense. > > > + intel_guc_tlb_invalidation_done(ct_to_guc(ct), payload[0]); > > + ct_free_msg(request); > > + return 0; > > + } > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&ct->requests.lock, flags); > > list_add_tail(&request->link, &ct->requests.incoming); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ct->requests.lock, flags); > > > > queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &ct->requests.worker); > > + > > return 0; > > } > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fwif.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fwif.h > > index b3c9a9327f76..3edf567b3f65 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fwif.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fwif.h > > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ > > /* Payload length only i.e. don't include G2H header length */ > > #define G2H_LEN_DW_SCHED_CONTEXT_MODE_SET 2 > > #define G2H_LEN_DW_DEREGISTER_CONTEXT 1 > > +#define G2H_LEN_DW_INVALIDATE_TLB 1 > > > > #define GUC_CONTEXT_DISABLE 0 > > #define GUC_CONTEXT_ENABLE 1 > > @@ -431,4 +432,9 @@ enum intel_guc_recv_message { > > INTEL_GUC_RECV_MSG_EXCEPTION = BIT(30), > > }; > > > > +#define INTEL_GUC_SUPPORTS_TLB_INVALIDATION(guc) \ > > + ((intel_guc_ct_enabled(&(guc)->ct)) && \ This basically does: static inline bool intel_guc_ct_enabled(struct intel_guc_ct *ct) { return ct->enabled; } > > do we need this check ? > CTB is prerequisite for submission that is required below > > > + (intel_guc_submission_is_used(guc)) && \ If I understood the code right, this checks the status machine, by looking at __intel_uc_fw_status(&guc->fw), but it doesn't look at ct->enabled. Without knowing exactly how the status is updated, is hard to tell if ct enabled flag will be always true here. So, I would keep the check. > > + (GRAPHICS_VER(guc_to_gt((guc))->i915) >= 12)) > > + > > #endif > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c > > index 40f726c61e95..6888ea1bc7c1 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c > > @@ -1653,11 +1653,20 @@ static void __guc_reset_context(struct intel_context *ce, intel_engine_mask_t st > > intel_context_put(parent); > > } > > > > +static void wake_up_tlb_invalidate(struct intel_guc_tlb_wait *wait) > > +{ > > + /* Barrier to ensure the store is observed by the woken thread */ > > + smp_store_mb(wait->status, 0); > > + wake_up(&wait->wq); > > +} > > + > > void intel_guc_submission_reset(struct intel_guc *guc, intel_engine_mask_t stalled) > > { > > + struct intel_guc_tlb_wait *wait; > > struct intel_context *ce; > > unsigned long index; > > unsigned long flags; > > + unsigned long i; > > > > if (unlikely(!guc_submission_initialized(guc))) { > > /* Reset called during driver load? GuC not yet initialised! */ > > @@ -1683,6 +1692,13 @@ void intel_guc_submission_reset(struct intel_guc *guc, intel_engine_mask_t stall > > > > /* GuC is blown away, drop all references to contexts */ > > xa_destroy(&guc->context_lookup); > > + > > + /* > > + * The full GT reset will have cleared the TLB caches and flushed the > > + * G2H message queue; we can release all the blocked waiters. > > + */ > > + xa_for_each(&guc->tlb_lookup, i, wait) > > + wake_up_tlb_invalidate(wait); > > shouldn't this be closer to intel_guc_invalidate_tlb_guc() > then we can avoid spreading code across many files > > same for the init/fini_tlb_lookup() functions below I'll address that on a final patch moving GuC-based TLB patch to a separate file. > > } > > > > static void guc_cancel_context_requests(struct intel_context *ce) > > @@ -1805,6 +1821,41 @@ void intel_guc_submission_reset_finish(struct intel_guc *guc) > > static void destroyed_worker_func(struct work_struct *w); > > static void reset_fail_worker_func(struct work_struct *w); > > > > +static int init_tlb_lookup(struct intel_guc *guc) > > +{ > > + struct intel_guc_tlb_wait *wait; > > + int err; > > + > > + xa_init_flags(&guc->tlb_lookup, XA_FLAGS_ALLOC); > > + > > + wait = kzalloc(sizeof(*wait), GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (!wait) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > + > > + init_waitqueue_head(&wait->wq); > > + err = xa_alloc_cyclic_irq(&guc->tlb_lookup, &guc->serial_slot, wait, > > + xa_limit_32b, &guc->next_seqno, GFP_KERNEL); > > + if (err == -ENOMEM) { > > + kfree(wait); > > + return err; > > + } > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > + > > +static void fini_tlb_lookup(struct intel_guc *guc) > > +{ > > + struct intel_guc_tlb_wait *wait; > > + > > + wait = xa_load(&guc->tlb_lookup, guc->serial_slot); > > + if (wait) { > > + GEM_BUG_ON(wait->status); > > + kfree(wait); > > + } > > + > > + xa_destroy(&guc->tlb_lookup); > > +} > > + > > /* > > * Set up the memory resources to be shared with the GuC (via the GGTT) > > * at firmware loading time. > > @@ -1812,20 +1863,31 @@ static void reset_fail_worker_func(struct work_struct *w); > > int intel_guc_submission_init(struct intel_guc *guc) > > { > > struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc); > > + int ret; > > > > if (guc->submission_initialized) > > return 0; > > > > + ret = init_tlb_lookup(guc); > > if we promote guc_tlb to own file/functions then maybe it could be > init/fini directly from __uc_init_hw() ? I'll look on it at the new patch to be added at the end. > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > guc->submission_state.guc_ids_bitmap = > > bitmap_zalloc(NUMBER_MULTI_LRC_GUC_ID(guc), GFP_KERNEL); > > - if (!guc->submission_state.guc_ids_bitmap) > > - return -ENOMEM; > > + if (!guc->submission_state.guc_ids_bitmap) { > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > + goto err; > > + } > > > > guc->timestamp.ping_delay = (POLL_TIME_CLKS / gt->clock_frequency + 1) * HZ; > > guc->timestamp.shift = gpm_timestamp_shift(gt); > > guc->submission_initialized = true; > > > > return 0; > > + > > +err: > > + fini_tlb_lookup(guc); > > + return ret; > > } > > > > void intel_guc_submission_fini(struct intel_guc *guc) > > @@ -1836,6 +1898,7 @@ void intel_guc_submission_fini(struct intel_guc *guc) > > guc_flush_destroyed_contexts(guc); > > i915_sched_engine_put(guc->sched_engine); > > bitmap_free(guc->submission_state.guc_ids_bitmap); > > + fini_tlb_lookup(guc); > > guc->submission_initialized = false; > > } > > > > @@ -4027,6 +4090,30 @@ g2h_context_lookup(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 ctx_id) > > return ce; > > } > > > > +static void wait_wake_outstanding_tlb_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 seqno) > > +{ > > + struct intel_guc_tlb_wait *wait; > > + unsigned long flags; > > + > > + xa_lock_irqsave(&guc->tlb_lookup, flags); > > + wait = xa_load(&guc->tlb_lookup, seqno); > > + > > + /* We received a response after the waiting task did exit with a timeout */ > > + if (unlikely(!wait)) > > + drm_dbg(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm, > > + "Stale tlb invalidation response with seqno %d\n", seqno); > > hmm, this sounds like a problem as we shouldn't get any late > notifications - do we really want to hide it under drm_dbg ? Agreed. I'll change it to drm_err(). > > + > > + if (wait) > > + wake_up_tlb_invalidate(wait); > > + > > + xa_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->tlb_lookup, flags); > > +} > > + > > +void intel_guc_tlb_invalidation_done(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 seqno) > > +{ > > + wait_wake_outstanding_tlb_g2h(guc, seqno); > > +} > > + > > int intel_guc_deregister_done_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc, > > const u32 *msg, > > u32 len) > > ,Michal
