On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 01:07:22PM -0800, John Harrison wrote:
> On 1/19/2022 12:54, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 05:37:01PM -0800, John Harrison wrote:
> > > On 1/18/2022 13:43, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > > The G2H handler needs to be flushed during a GT reset but a G2H
> > > > indicating engine reset failure can trigger a GT reset. Add a worker to
> > > > trigger the GT when a engine reset failure is received to break this
> > > s/a/an/
> > >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > > circular dependency.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h | 5 ++++
> > > > .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 23 +++++++++++++++----
> > > > 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > > > index 9d26a86fe557a..60ea8deef5392 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > > > @@ -119,6 +119,11 @@ struct intel_guc {
> > > > * function as it might be in an atomic context (no sleeping)
> > > > */
> > > > struct work_struct destroyed_worker;
> > > > + /**
> > > > + * @reset_worker: worker to trigger a GT reset after an engine
> > > > + * reset fails
> > > > + */
> > > > + struct work_struct reset_worker;
> > > > } submission_state;
> > > > /**
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > > > index 23a40f10d376d..cdd8d691251ff 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > > > @@ -1746,6 +1746,7 @@ void intel_guc_submission_reset_finish(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > > > }
> > > > static void destroyed_worker_func(struct work_struct *w);
> > > > +static void reset_worker_func(struct work_struct *w);
> > > > /*
> > > > * Set up the memory resources to be shared with the GuC (via the GGTT)
> > > > @@ -1776,6 +1777,8 @@ int intel_guc_submission_init(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&guc->submission_state.destroyed_contexts);
> > > > INIT_WORK(&guc->submission_state.destroyed_worker,
> > > > destroyed_worker_func);
> > > > + INIT_WORK(&guc->submission_state.reset_worker,
> > > > + reset_worker_func);
> > > > guc->submission_state.guc_ids_bitmap =
> > > > bitmap_zalloc(NUMBER_MULTI_LRC_GUC_ID(guc), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > @@ -4052,6 +4055,17 @@ guc_lookup_engine(struct intel_guc *guc, u8 guc_class, u8 instance)
> > > > return gt->engine_class[engine_class][instance];
> > > > }
> > > > +static void reset_worker_func(struct work_struct *w)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct intel_guc *guc = container_of(w, struct intel_guc,
> > > > + submission_state.reset_worker);
> > > > + struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
> > > > +
> > > > + intel_gt_handle_error(gt, ALL_ENGINES,
> > > > + I915_ERROR_CAPTURE,
> > > > + "GuC failed to reset a engine\n");
> > > s/a/an/
> > >
> > Yep.
> >
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > int intel_guc_engine_failure_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc,
> > > > const u32 *msg, u32 len)
> > > > {
> > > > @@ -4083,10 +4097,11 @@ int intel_guc_engine_failure_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc,
> > > > drm_err(>->i915->drm, "GuC engine reset request failed on %d:%d (%s) because 0x%08X",
> > > > guc_class, instance, engine->name, reason);
> > > > - intel_gt_handle_error(gt, engine->mask,
> > > > - I915_ERROR_CAPTURE,
> > > > - "GuC failed to reset %s (reason=0x%08x)\n",
> > > > - engine->name, reason);
> > > The engine name and reason code are lost from the error capture? I guess we
> > > still get it in the drm_err above, though. So probably not an issue. We
> > > shouldn't be getting these from end users and any internal CI run is only
> > > likely to give us the dmesg, not the error capture anyway! However, still
> > That was my reasoning on the msg too.
> >
> > > seems like it is work saving engine->mask in the submission_state structure
> > > (ORing in, in case there are multiple resets). Clearing it should be safe
> > > because once a GT reset has happened, we aren't getting any more G2Hs. And
> > > we can't have multiple message handlers running concurrently, right? So no
> > > need to protect the OR either.
> > >
> > I could do that but the engine->mask is really only used for the error
> > capture with GuC submission as any i915 based reset with GuC submission
> > is a GT reset. Going from engine->mask to ALL_ENGINES will just capture
> > all engine state before doing a GT reset which probably isn't a bad
> > thing, right?
> >
> > I can update the commit message explaining this if that helps.
> Except that a failure to reset is notionally a hardware bug. As recently
> demonstrated, it could be a software bug due to timeouts being broken. But
> officially, it is something that should never happen. So in the rare case
> where one does show up, we would want to know as much as possible about the
> issue. Most especially - which engine it was that failed. And if all we get
> is a customer bug report with an error capture but no dmesg then we will
> have no idea which. It just seems wrong to be throwing away potentially
> important information for no real reason.
>
Ok, will add a engine->mask that gets OR'd on every engine reset failure
and cleared on every GT reset in the worker. Probably to be really safe
I should protect this field by the submission state lock too.
Matt
> John.
>
>
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > > John.
> > >
> > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * A GT reset flushes this worker queue (G2H handler) so we must use
> > > > + * another worker to trigger a GT reset.
> > > > + */
> > > > + queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &guc->submission_state.reset_worker);
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
>
