In commit a79ca656b648 ("drm/i915: Push the wakeref->count deferral to
the backend"), I erroneously concluded that we last modify the engine
inside __i915_request_commit() meaning that we could enable concurrent
submission for userspace as we enqueued this request. However, this
falls into a trap with other users of the engine->kernel_context waking
up and submitting their request before the idle-switch is queued, with
the result that the kernel_context is executed out-of-sequence most
likely upsetting the GPU and certainly ourselves when we try to retire
the out-of-sequence requests.
As such we need to hold onto the effective engine->kernel_context mutex
lock (via the engine pm mutex proxy) until we have finish queuing the
request to the engine.
v2: Serialise against concurrent intel_gt_retire_requests()
v3: Describe the hairy locking scheme with intel_gt_retire_requests()
for future reference.
Fixes: a79ca656b648 ("drm/i915: Push the wakeref->count deferral to the backend")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
index 3c0f490ff2c7..a7240e2dd873 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
@@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ static inline void __timeline_mark_unlock(struct intel_context *ce,
static bool switch_to_kernel_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
{
+ struct intel_context *ce = engine->kernel_context;
struct i915_request *rq;
unsigned long flags;
bool result = true;
@@ -98,16 +99,30 @@ static bool switch_to_kernel_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
* This should hold true as we can only park the engine after
* retiring the last request, thus all rings should be empty and
* all timelines idle.
+ *
+ * For unlocking, there are 2 other parties and the GPU who have a
+ * stake here.
+ *
+ * A new gpu user will be waiting on the engine-pm to start their
+ * engine_unpark. New waiters are predicated on engine->wakeref.count
+ * and so intel_wakeref_defer_park() acts like a mutex_unlock of the
+ * engine->wakeref.
+ *
+ * The other party is intel_gt_retire_requests(), which is walking the
+ * list of active timelines looking for completions. Meanwhile as soon
+ * as we call __i915_request_queue(), the GPU may complete our request.
+ * Ergo, if we put ourselves on the timelines.active_list
+ * (se intel_timeline_enter()) before we increment the
+ * engine->wakeref.count, we may see the request completion and retire
+ * it causing an undeflow of the engine->wakeref.
*/
- flags = __timeline_mark_lock(engine->kernel_context);
+ flags = __timeline_mark_lock(ce);
- rq = __i915_request_create(engine->kernel_context, GFP_NOWAIT);
+ rq = __i915_request_create(ce, GFP_NOWAIT);
if (IS_ERR(rq))
/* Context switch failed, hope for the best! Maybe reset? */
goto out_unlock;
- intel_timeline_enter(i915_request_timeline(rq));
-
/* Check again on the next retirement. */
engine->wakeref_serial = engine->serial + 1;
i915_request_add_active_barriers(rq);
@@ -116,13 +131,17 @@ static bool switch_to_kernel_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
rq->sched.attr.priority = I915_PRIORITY_BARRIER;
__i915_request_commit(rq);
+ __i915_request_queue(rq, NULL);
+
/* Release our exclusive hold on the engine */
__intel_wakeref_defer_park(&engine->wakeref);
- __i915_request_queue(rq, NULL);
+
+ /* And finally expose ourselves to intel_gt_retire_requests() */
+ intel_timeline_enter(ce->timeline);
result = false;
out_unlock:
- __timeline_mark_unlock(engine->kernel_context, flags);
+ __timeline_mark_unlock(ce, flags);
return result;
}
--
2.24.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
