On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 10:57:20PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Jeff McGee (2017-08-29 18:01:47)
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:17:46PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Quoting Jeff McGee (2017-08-29 16:04:17)
> > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:07:18AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Jeff McGee (2017-08-28 21:18:44)
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 08:44:48PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > > > Quoting jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx (2017-08-28 20:25:30)
> > > > > > > > From: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If someone else is resetting the engine we should clear our own bit as
> > > > > > > > part of skipping that engine. Otherwise we will later believe that it
> > > > > > > > has not been reset successfully and then trigger full gpu reset. If the
> > > > > > > > other guy's reset actually fails, he will trigger the full gpu reset.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reason we did continue on to the global reset was to serialise
> > > > > > > i915_handle_error() with the other thread. Not a huge issue, but a
> > > > > > > reasonable property to keep -- and we definitely want a to explain why
> > > > > > > only one reset at a time is important.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > bool intel_engine_lock_reset() {
> > > > > > > if (!test_and_set_bit(I915_RESET_ENGINE + engine->id,
> > > > > > > &engine->i915->gpu_error.flags))
> > > > > > > return true;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > intel_engine_wait_for_reset(engine);
> > > > > > The current code doesn't wait for the other thread to finish the reset, but
> > > > > > this would add that wait.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pardon? If we can't reset the engine, we go to the full reset which is
> > > > > serialised, both with individual engine resets and other globals.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Did you intend that as an additional change to
> > > > > > the current code? I don't think it is necessary. Each thread wants to
> > > > > > reset some subset of engines, so it seems the thread can safely exit as soon
> > > > > > as it knows each of those engines has been reset or is being reset as part
> > > > > > of another thread that got the lock first. If any of the threads fail to
> > > > > > reset an engine they "own", then full gpu reset is assured.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's unexpected for this function to return before the reset.
> > > > > -Chris
> > > >
> > > > I'm a bit confused, so let's go back to the original code that I was trying
> > > > to fix:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * Try engine reset when available. We fall back to full reset if
> > > > * single reset fails.
> > > > */
> > > > if (intel_has_reset_engine(dev_priv)) {
> > > > for_each_engine_masked(engine, dev_priv, engine_mask, tmp) {
> > > > BUILD_BUG_ON(I915_RESET_MODESET >= I915_RESET_ENGINE);
> > > > if (test_and_set_bit(I915_RESET_ENGINE + engine->id,
> > > > &dev_priv->gpu_error.flags))
> > > > continue;
> > > >
> > > > if (i915_reset_engine(engine, 0) == 0)
> > > > engine_mask &= ~intel_engine_flag(engine);
> > > >
> > > > clear_bit(I915_RESET_ENGINE + engine->id,
> > > > &dev_priv->gpu_error.flags);
> > > > wake_up_bit(&dev_priv->gpu_error.flags,
> > > > I915_RESET_ENGINE + engine->id);
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > if (!engine_mask)
> > > > goto out;
> > > >
> > > > /* Full reset needs the mutex, stop any other user trying to do so. */
> > > >
> > > > Let's say that 2 threads are here intending to reset render. #1 gets the lock
> > > > and starts the render engine-only reset. #2 fails to get the lock which implies
> > > > that someone else is in the process of resetting the render engine (with single
> > > > engine reset or full gpu reset). #2 continues on without waiting but doesn't
> > > > clear the render bit in engine_mask. So #2 will proceed to initiate a full
> > > > gpu reset when it may not be necessary. That's the problem I was trying
> > > > to address with my initial patch. Do you agree that #2 must clear this bit
> > > > to avoid always triggering full gpu reset? If the engine-only reset done by
> > > > #1 fails, #1 will do the fallback to full gpu reset, so there is no risk that
> > > > we would miss the full gpu reset if it is really needed.
> > > >
> > > > Then there is the question of whether #2 should wait around for the
> > > > render engine reset by #1 to complete. It doesn't in current code and I don't
> > > > see why it needs to. But that can be a separate discussion from the above.
> > >
> > > It very much does in the current code. If we can not do the per-engine
> > > reset, it falls back to the global reset.
> >
> > So are you saying that it is by design in this scenario that #2 will resort
> > to full gpu reset just because it wasn't the thread that actually performed
> > the engine reset, even though it can clearly infer based on the engine lock
> > being held that #1 is performing that reset for him?
>
> Yes, that wait was intentional.
>
So couldn't we preserve the wait without resorting to full GPU reset to do it?
It is the unnecessary triggering of full GPU reset that concerns me the most,
not that thread #2 has to wait.
I admit it's not a major concern at the moment because the code runs
concurrently only if debugfs wedged is invoked along with hangcheck (if I read
it correctly). I've added another delayed work that can run the code to do
"forced" preemption to clear the way for high-priority requests, and unnecessary
fallback to slow full GPU reset is a bad thing.
> > > The global reset is serialised
> > > with itself and the per-engine resets. Ergo it waits, and that was
> > > intentional.
> > > -Chris
> >
> > Yes, the wait happens because #2 goes on to start full gpu reset which
> > requires all engine bits to be grabbed. My contention is that it should not
> > start full gpu reset.
>
> And that I am not disputing. Just that returning before the reset is
> complete changes the current contract.
> -Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
