On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:15 AM Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:46 AM Neil Armstrong > > <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 17/09/2024 13:14, Antonino Maniscalco wrote: > > > > This series implements preemption for A7XX targets, which allows the GPU to > > > > switch to an higher priority ring when work is pushed to it, reducing latency > > > > for high priority submissions. > > > > > > > > This series enables L1 preemption with skip_save_restore which requires > > > > the following userspace patches to function: > > > > > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/30544 > > > > > > > > A flag is added to `msm_submitqueue_create` to only allow submissions > > > > from compatible userspace to be preempted, therefore maintaining > > > > compatibility. > > > > > > > > Preemption is currently only enabled by default on A750, it can be > > > > enabled on other targets through the `enable_preemption` module > > > > parameter. This is because more testing is required on other targets. > > > > > > > > For testing on other HW it is sufficient to set that parameter to a > > > > value of 1, then using the branch of mesa linked above, `TU_DEBUG=hiprio` > > > > allows to run any application as high priority therefore preempting > > > > submissions from other applications. > > > > > > > > The `msm_gpu_preemption_trigger` and `msm_gpu_preemption_irq` traces > > > > added in this series can be used to observe preemption's behavior as > > > > well as measuring preemption latency. > > > > > > > > Some commits from this series are based on a previous series to enable > > > > preemption on A6XX targets: > > > > > > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/1520489185-21828-1-git-send-email-smasetty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Antonino Maniscalco <antomani103@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > - Added missing register in pwrup list > > > > - Removed and rearrange barriers > > > > - Renamed `skip_inline_wptr` to `restore_wptr` > > > > - Track ctx seqno per ring > > > > - Removed secure preempt context > > > > - NOP out postamble to disable it instantly > > > > - Only emit pwrup reglist once > > > > - Document bv_rptr_addr > > > > - Removed unused A6XX_PREEMPT_USER_RECORD_SIZE > > > > - Set name on preempt record buffer > > > > - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240905-preemption-a750-t-v3-0-fd947699f7bc@xxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > - Added documentation about preemption > > > > - Use quirks to determine which target supports preemption > > > > - Add a module parameter to force disabling or enabling preemption > > > > - Clear postamble when profiling > > > > - Define A6XX_CP_CONTEXT_SWITCH_CNTL_LEVEL fields in a6xx.xml > > > > - Make preemption records MAP_PRIV > > > > - Removed user ctx record (NON_PRIV) and patch 2/9 as it's not needed > > > > anymore > > > > - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240830-preemption-a750-t-v2-0-86aeead2cd80@xxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > - Added preept_record_size for X185 in PATCH 3/7 > > > > - Added patches to reset perf counters > > > > - Dropped unused defines > > > > - Dropped unused variable (fixes warning) > > > > - Only enable preemption on a750 > > > > - Reject MSM_SUBMITQUEUE_ALLOW_PREEMPT for unsupported targets > > > > - Added Akhil's Reviewed-By tags to patches 1/9,2/9,3/9 > > > > - Added Neil's Tested-By tags > > > > - Added explanation for UAPI changes in commit message > > > > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240815-preemption-a750-t-v1-0-7bda26c34037@xxxxxxxxx > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Antonino Maniscalco (11): > > > > drm/msm: Fix bv_fence being used as bv_rptr > > > > drm/msm/A6XX: Track current_ctx_seqno per ring > > > > drm/msm: Add a `preempt_record_size` field > > > > drm/msm: Add CONTEXT_SWITCH_CNTL bitfields > > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Implement preemption for A7XX targets > > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Sync relevant adreno_pm4.xml changes > > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Use posamble to reset counters on preemption > > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Add traces for preemption > > > > drm/msm/A6XX: Add a flag to allow preemption to submitqueue_create > > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Enable preemption for A750 > > > > Documentation: document adreno preemption > > > > > > > > Documentation/gpu/msm-preemption.rst | 98 +++++ > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/Makefile | 1 + > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a2xx_gpu.c | 2 +- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a3xx_gpu.c | 2 +- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a4xx_gpu.c | 2 +- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.c | 6 +- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c | 7 +- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c | 325 ++++++++++++++- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.h | 174 ++++++++ > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_preempt.c | 440 +++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.h | 9 +- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 4 + > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c | 2 +- > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h | 11 - > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu_trace.h | 28 ++ > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_ringbuffer.h | 18 + > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_submitqueue.c | 3 + > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/registers/adreno/a6xx.xml | 7 +- > > > > .../gpu/drm/msm/registers/adreno/adreno_pm4.xml | 39 +- > > > > include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h | 5 +- > > > > 20 files changed, 1117 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > > > --- > > > > base-commit: 7c626ce4bae1ac14f60076d00eafe71af30450ba > > > > change-id: 20240815-preemption-a750-t-fcee9a844b39 > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > I've been running vulkan-cts (1.3.7.3-0-gd71a36db16d98313c431829432a136dbda692a08 from Yocto) > > > on SM8650-QRD, SM8550-QRD & SM8450-HDK boards with enable_preemption in default value > > > and forced to 1, and I've seen no regression so far > > > > > > On SM8550, I've seen a few: > > > platform 3d6a000.gmu: [drm:a6xx_hfi_send_msg.constprop.0 [msm]] *ERROR* Message HFI_H2F_MSG_GX_BW_PERF_VOTE id 2743 timed out waiting for response > > > platform 3d6a000.gmu: [drm:a6xx_hfi_send_msg.constprop.0 [msm]] *ERROR* Unexpected message id 2743 on the response queue > > > but it's unrelated to preempt > > > > > > and on SM8450: > > > platform 3d6a000.gmu: [drm:a6xx_gmu_set_oob [msm]] *ERROR* Timeout waiting for GMU OOB set GPU_SET: 0x0 > > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:hangcheck_handler [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: hangcheck detected gpu lockup rb 0! > > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:hangcheck_handler [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: completed fence: 331235 > > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:hangcheck_handler [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: submitted fence: 331236 > > > adreno 3d00000.gpu: [drm:a6xx_irq [msm]] *ERROR* gpu fault ring 0 fence 50de4 status 00800005 rb 0000/0699 ib1 0000000000000000/0000 ib2 0000000000000000/0000 > > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:recover_worker [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: hangcheck recover! > > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:recover_worker [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: offending task: deqp-vk (/usr/lib/vulkan-cts/deqp-vk) > > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:recover_worker [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: hangcheck recover! > > > leading to a VK_ERROR_DEVICE_LOST, but again unrelated to preempt support. > > > > I suspect on newer devices we have trouble resetting the GMU, leading > > to (what I assume is happening here) the CPU thinking the GMU is in a > > different state than it is. > > > > Which has led to some stability issues on a660 in mesa CI, if anything > > crashes the gpu in the CI run it tends to kill the rest of the run > > until the board is power cycled. > > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/37 > > > > I think we have some work to do on making recovery more robust on > > things newer than early a6xx things. > > Is this seen only with a particular scenario or is recovery always > broken? I fixed recovery on 7c3 (a660 based) a couple of year ago, > not sure what exactly regressed. At least I didn't see any issue on > x185. More recently my x1e (x1-85) and sc8280xp (a690) have been pretty reliable about recovery. And mesa CI seems to have gotten more reliable at recovery when they uprev'd from v6.6x to v6.11.x, so I guess something in that range improved things? But maybe not 100%, kernel-ci (msm/msm_recovery@gpu-fault) can sometimes reproduce this, apparently: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/65 This test does 16 submits, with the 10th one having an invalid opc, and then checks that all the ones before and after successfully execute a CP_MEM_WRITE: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools/-/blob/master/tests/msm/msm_recovery.c?ref_type=heads#L145 BR, -R > -Akhil. > > > > > BR, > > -R > > > > > So you can also add: > > > Tested-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> # on SM8550-QRD > > > Tested-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@xxxxxxxxxx> # on SM8450-HDK > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Neil
