On 10/22/2024 8:35 PM, Rob Clark wrote: > 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 > I suppose we don't have a gpu coredump available. A663 is pretty similar to A660, so I can try to reproduce this issue there. Will check this out. -Akhil > 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
