On 28/06/2022 17:22, Robert Beckett wrote:
On 28/06/2022 09:46, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:
On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:
On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:
*Patch Details*
*Series:* drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
*URL:* https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/
<https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/>
*State:* failure
*Details:*
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html
<https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html>
CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5
Summary
*FAILURE*
Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely
need to be
verified manually.
If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, please notify your bug team to
allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false
positives in CI.
External URL:
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html
Participating hosts (40 -> 41)
Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus
Possible new issues
Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in
Patchwork_101396v5:
IGT changes
Possible regressions
* igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
o bat-adlp-4: PASS
<https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11790/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@live@xxxxxxxxxx>
-> DMESG-FAIL
<https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@live@xxxxxxxxxx>
I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and
occasionally on bat-adlp-6.
Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like
bat-adlp-6 is for now?
Alternatively, seeing the history of this in
commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude
low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"
could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse
on adlp machines?
I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many
runs via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.
Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.
Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages
165/166.
Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are
there some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching
the selftest itself?
Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially
POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?
(see
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@live@xxxxxxxxxx#dmesg-warnings702)
after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is that a
ring buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the initial
crc capture in the test, but by the time it came to check for
corruption, it had been freed from that page.
The test has a number of weaknesses:
1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account any
change in between. I assume previously this could be relied on never
to occur, but now it can for some reason (more on that later)
You mean the stolen page used/unused test? Probably the premise is
that the test controls the driver completely ie. is the sole user and
the two checks are run at the time where nothing else could have
changed the state.
With the nerfed request (as with GuC) this actually should hold. In
the generic case I am less sure, my working knowledge faded a bit, but
perhaps there was something guaranteeing the spinner couldn't have
been retired yet at the time of the second check. Would need
clarifying at least in comments.
2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc submission
engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it should
ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test for
those situations.
Yes looks dodgy indeed. You will need to summon the owners of the GuC
backend to comment on this.
However even if the test should be skipped with GuC it is extremely
interesting that you are hitting this so I suspect there is a more
serious issue at play.
indeed. That's why I am keen to get to the root cause instead of just
slapping in a fix.
A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers each
page's busy state initially and only check for corruption if it was
busy during both checks.
However, the main question is why this is occurring now with my changes.
I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is being
freed, but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for once.
I am running again now, will report back if I figure out where it is
being freed.
I am pretty sure the "corruption" (which isn't actually corruption)
is from a ring buffer.
The POISON_FREE is the only difference between the captured before
and after dumps:
[0040] 00000000 02800000 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b
6b6b6b6b
with the 2nd dword being the MI_ARB_CHECK used for the spinner.
I think this is the request poisoning from i915_request_retire()
The bit I don't know yet is why a ring buffer was freed between the
initial crc capture and the corruption check. The spinner should be
active across the entire test, maintaining a ref on the context and
it's ring.
hopefully my latest debug will give more answers.
Yeah if you can figure our whether the a) spinner is still active
during the 2nd check (as I think it should be), and b) is the
corruption detected in the same pages which were used in the 1st pass
that would be interesting.
yep. The latest run is still stuck in the CI queue after 27 hours.
I think I have enough debug in there to catch it now.
Hopefully I can get a root cause once it gets chance to run.
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v7/fi-adl-ddr5/igt@i915_selftest@live@xxxxxxxxxx#dmesg-warnings496
well, the run finally happened.
And it shows that the freed resource happens from a workqueue. Not helpful.
I'll now add a saved stack traces to all objects that saves where it is
allocated and freed/queued for free.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Btw what is the benefit of converting stolen to start with? It's not
much of a backend since it just uses the drm range manager. So quite
thin and uneventful. Diffstats for the series also do not look like
you end up with much code reduction?
Regards,
Tvrtko
