On 08/03/2023 15:39, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
Write-combining memory allows speculative reads by CPU.
ggtt->error_capture is WC mapped to CPU, so CPU/MMU can try
to prefetch memory beyond the error_capture, ie it tries
to read memory pointed by next PTE in GGTT.
If this PTE points to invalid address DMAR errors will occur.
This behaviour was observed on ADL and RPL platforms.
To avoid it, guard scratch page should be added after error_capture.
The patch fixes the most annoying issue with error capture but
since WC reads are used also in other places there is a risk similar
problem can affect them as well.
v2:
- modified commit message (I hope the diagnosis is correct),
- added bug checks to ensure scratch is initialized on gen3
platforms.
CI produces strange stacktrace for it suggesting scratch[0] is
NULL,
to be removed after resolving the issue with gen3 platforms.
v3:
- removed bug checks, replaced with gen check.
v4:
- change code for scratch page insertion to support all platforms,
- add info in commit message there could be more similar issues
v5:
- check for nop_clear_range instead of gen8 (Tvrtko),
- re-insert scratch pages on resume (Tvrtko)
Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c | 35
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
index b925da42c7cfc4..8fb700fde85c8f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
@@ -502,6 +502,21 @@ static void cleanup_init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt
*ggtt)
mutex_destroy(&ggtt->error_mutex);
}
+static void
+ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt, u64 offset, u64
length)
+{
+ struct i915_address_space *vm = &ggtt->vm;
+
+ if (vm->clear_range != nop_clear_range)
Hm I thought usually we would add a prefix for exported stuff, like in
this case i915_vm_nop_clear_range, however I see intel_gtt.h exports a
bunch of stuff with no prefixes already so I guess you could continue
like that by inertia. The conundrum also could have been avoided if
you left it static (leaving out dpt and mock_gtt patches) but no
strong opinion from me.
+ return vm->clear_range(vm, offset, length);
+
+ while (length > 0) {
+ vm->insert_page(vm, px_dma(vm->scratch[0]), offset,
I915_CACHE_NONE, 0);
+ offset += I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
+ length -= I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
+ }
+}
+
static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
{
/*
@@ -550,8 +565,12 @@ static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
* paths, and we trust that 0 will remain reserved. However,
* the only likely reason for failure to insert is a driver
* bug, which we expect to cause other failures...
+ *
+ * Since CPU can perform speculative reads on error capture
+ * (write-combining allows it) add scratch page after error
+ * capture to avoid DMAR errors.
*/
- ggtt->error_capture.size = I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
+ ggtt->error_capture.size = 2 * I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
ggtt->error_capture.color = I915_COLOR_UNEVICTABLE;
if (drm_mm_reserve_node(&ggtt->vm.mm, &ggtt->error_capture))
drm_mm_insert_node_in_range(&ggtt->vm.mm,
@@ -561,11 +580,15 @@ static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
0, ggtt->mappable_end,
DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW);
}
- if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture))
+ if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture)) {
+ u64 start = ggtt->error_capture.start;
+ u64 size = ggtt->error_capture.size;
+
+ ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(ggtt, start, size);
drm_dbg(&ggtt->vm.i915->drm,
"Reserved GGTT:[%llx, %llx] for use by error capture\n",
- ggtt->error_capture.start,
- ggtt->error_capture.start + ggtt->error_capture.size);
+ start, start + size);
+ }
/*
* The upper portion of the GuC address space has a sizeable hole
@@ -1256,6 +1279,10 @@ void i915_ggtt_resume(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
flush = i915_ggtt_resume_vm(&ggtt->vm);
+ if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture))
+ ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(ggtt, ggtt->error_capture.start,
+ ggtt->error_capture.size);
Maybe it belongs in i915_ggtt_resume_vm since that one deals with
PTEs? Looks like it to me, but ack either way.
