On 5/6/2022 12:18 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/05/2022 19:36, John Harrison wrote:On 5/5/2022 10:21, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:We are not 'hoping it makes it'. We know for a fact that it will make it. We just don't know when. The issue is not about whether the waitboost request itself gets dropped/lost it is about the ack that comes back. The GuC will process the message and it will send an ack. It's just a question of whether the i915 driver has given up waiting for it yet. And if it has, then you get the initial 'timed out waiting for ack' followed by a later 'got unexpected ack' message.On 5/5/2022 5:13 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:We don't have a specific error for this one, but have seen similar issues with other H2G which are blocking.On 05/05/2022 06:40, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:SLPC min/max frequency updates require H2G calls. We are seeing timeouts when GuC channel is backed up and it is unable to respond in a timely fashion causing warnings and affecting CI.Is it the "Unable to force min freq" error? Do you have a link to the GitLab issue to add to commit message?This is seen when waitboosting happens during a stress test. this patch updates the waitboost path to use a non-blocking H2G call instead, which returns as soon as the message is successfully transmitted.AFAIU with this approach, when CT channel is congested, you instead achieve silent dropping of the waitboost request, right?We are hoping it makes it, but just not waiting for it to complete.Whereas, if we make the call asynchronous, there is no ack. i915 doesn't bother waiting and it won't get surprised later.Also, note that this is only an issue when GuC itself is backed up. Normally that requires the creation/destruction of large numbers of contexts in rapid succession (context management is about the slowest thing we do with GuC). Some of the IGTs and selftests do that with thousands of contexts all at once. Those are generally where we see this kind of problem. It would be highly unlikely (but not impossible) to hit it in real world usage.Goto ->The general design philosophy of H2G messages is that asynchronous mode should be used for everything if at all possible. It is fire and forget and will all get processed in the order sent (same as batch buffer execution, really). Synchronous messages should only be used when an ack/status is absolutely required. E.g. start of day initialisation or things like TLB invalidation where we need to know that a cache has been cleared/flushed before updating memory from the CPU.John.It sounds like a potentially important feedback from the field to lose so easily. How about you added drm_notice to the worker when it fails?Or simply a "one line patch" to replace i915_probe_error (!?) with drm_notice and keep the blocking behavior. (I have no idea what is the typical time to drain the CT buffer, and so to decide whether waiting or dropping makes more sense for effectiveness of waitboosting.)Or since the congestion /should not/ happen in production, then the argument is why complicate with more code, in which case going with one line patch is an easy way forward?Here. Where I did hint I understood the "should not happen in production angle".So statement is GuC is congested in processing requests, but the h2g buffer is not congested so no chance intel_guc_send_nb() will fail with no space in that buffer? Sounds a bit un-intuitive.Anyway, it sounds okay to me to use the non-blocking, but I would like to see some logging if the unexpected does happen. Hence I was suggesting the option of adding drm_notice logging if the send fails from the worker. (Because I think other callers would already propagate the error, like sysfs.)err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq); if (!err) slpc->num_boosts++; else drm_notice(... "Failed to send waitboost request (%d)", err);
Ok, makes sense. Will send out another rev with this change. Thanks, Vinay.
Something like that. Regards, TvrtkoEven if we soften the blow here, the actual timeout error occurs in the intel_guc_ct.c code, so we cannot hide that error anyways. Making this call non-blocking will achieve both things.Thanks, Vinay.Regards, TvrtkoSigned-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@xxxxxxxxx> ---drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++-----1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.cindex 1db833da42df..c852f73cf521 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c@@ -98,6 +98,30 @@ static u32 slpc_get_state(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)return data->header.global_state; }+static int guc_action_slpc_set_param_nb(struct intel_guc *guc, u8 id, u32 value)+{ + u32 request[] = { + GUC_ACTION_HOST2GUC_PC_SLPC_REQUEST, + SLPC_EVENT(SLPC_EVENT_PARAMETER_SET, 2), + id, + value, + }; + int ret; + + ret = intel_guc_send_nb(guc, request, ARRAY_SIZE(request), 0); + + return ret > 0 ? -EPROTO : ret; +} ++static int slpc_set_param_nb(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u8 id, u32 value)+{ + struct intel_guc *guc = slpc_to_guc(slpc); + + GEM_BUG_ON(id >= SLPC_MAX_PARAM); + + return guc_action_slpc_set_param_nb(guc, id, value); +} +static int guc_action_slpc_set_param(struct intel_guc *guc, u8 id, u32 value){ u32 request[] = {@@ -208,12 +232,10 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)*/ with_intel_runtime_pm(&i915->runtime_pm, wakeref) { - ret = slpc_set_param(slpc, - SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ, - freq); - if (ret)- i915_probe_error(i915, "Unable to force min freq to %u: %d",- freq, ret); + /* Non-blocking request will avoid stalls */ + ret = slpc_set_param_nb(slpc, + SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ, + freq); } return ret;@@ -231,8 +253,8 @@ static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)*/ mutex_lock(&slpc->lock); if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) { - slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq); - slpc->num_boosts++; + if (!slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq)) + slpc->num_boosts++; } mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock); }
