On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:56:46AM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The signal threads may be running concurrently with the GPU reset. The > > completion from the GPU run asynchronous with the reset and two threads > > may see different snapshots of the state, and the signaler may mark a > > request as complete as we try to reset it. We don't tolerate 2 different > > views of the same state and complain if we try to mark a request as > > failed if it is already complete. Disable the signal threads during > > reset to prevent this conflict (even though the conflict implies that > > the state we resetting to is invalid, we have already made our > > decision!). > > > > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99671 > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 3 +++ > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > index 48922ff454e6..95582295b219 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ > > #include "intel_frontbuffer.h" > > #include "intel_mocs.h" > > #include <linux/dma-fence-array.h> > > +#include <linux/kthread.h> > > #include <linux/reservation.h> > > #include <linux/shmem_fs.h> > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > @@ -2643,6 +2644,17 @@ int i915_gem_reset_prepare(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv) > > for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id) { > > struct drm_i915_gem_request *request; > > > > + /* Prevent the signaler thread from updating the request > > + * state (by calling dma_fence_signal) as we are processing > > + * the reset. The write from the GPU of the seqno is > > + * asynchronous and the signaler thread may see a different > > + * value to us and declare the request complete, even though > > + * the reset routine have picked that request as the active > > + * (incomplete) request. This conflict is not handled > > + * gracefully! > > + */ > > + kthread_park(engine->breadcrumbs.signaler); > > + > > I was wondering here if it would be best to disable the tasklet first. > But stopping the car before we stop the engine seems wise thing to do. Note that we would have to do two passes over the engines to stop the signalers, and even then we still have other sources (other devices) that can cause tasklets to be invoked. There is not a foolproof answer here, they each serve a different purpose and can be disabled orthogonally. > Another unrelated thing is that we might be better off just to > make find_active_request always seqno coherent and fork a > noncoherent version for error capture. It's slightly more than that. In the worst case irq_barrier is not sufficient, and a second call to active_request may return a different victim - which again raises some awkwards issues in how we assign blame. At least we now do the irq_barrier hammer once at the start in reset_prepare, so we should be better, but I'm wondering if we want to store the request from prepare and then double check in the actual reset. Definitely a follow on patch to test the waters. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
