[TLDR: I'm adding this regression report to the list of tracked regressions; all text from me you find below is based on a few templates paragraphs you might have encountered already already in similar form.] Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker. On 15.07.22 01:08, Dave Airlie wrote: > On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 at 10:15, Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 03:59:55PM -0700, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> The latest GuC firmware drops the context descriptor pool in favour of >>> passing all creation data in the create H2G. It also greatly simplifies >>> the work queue and removes the process descriptor used for multi-LRC >>> submission. So, remove all mention of LRC and process descriptors and >>> update the registration code accordingly. >>> >>> Unfortunately, the new API also removes the ability to set default >>> values for the scheduling policies at context registration time. >>> Instead, a follow up H2G must be sent. The individual scheduling >>> policy update H2G commands are also dropped in favour of a single KLV >>> based H2G. So, change the update wrappers accordingly and call this >>> during context registration.. >>> >>> Of course, this second H2G per registration might fail due to being >>> backed up. The registration code has a complicated state machine to >>> cope with the actual registration call failing. However, if that works >>> then there is no support for unwinding if a further call should fail. >>> Unwinding would require sending a H2G to de-register - but that can't >>> be done because the CTB is already backed up. >>> >>> So instead, add a new flag to say whether the context has a pending >>> policy update. This is set if the policy H2G fails at registration >>> time. The submission code checks for this flag and retries the policy >>> update if set. If that call fails, the submission path early exists >>> with a retry error. This is something that is already supported for >>> other reasons. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Applied to drm-intel-gt-next. Thanks for the patch and review. >> > > (cc'ing Linus and danvet, as a headsup, there is also a phoronix > article where this was discovered). > > Okay WTF. > > This is in no way acceptable. This needs to be fixed in 5.19-rc ASAP. > > Once hardware is released and we remove the gate flag by default, you > cannot just bump firmware versions blindly. > > The kernel needs to retain compatibility with all released firmwares > since a device was declared supported. > > This needs to be reverted, and then 70 should be introduced with a > fallback to 69 versions. > > Very disappointing, I expect this to get dealt with v.quickly. To be sure below issue doesn't fall through the cracks unnoticed, I'm adding it to regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot: #regzbot ^introduced 2584b3549f4c4081 #regzbot title #regzbot ignore-activity This isn't a regression? This issue or a fix for it are already discussed somewhere else? It was fixed already? You want to clarify when the regression started to happen? Or point out I got the title or something else totally wrong? Then just reply -- ideally with also telling regzbot about it, as explained here: https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/tracked-regression/ Reminder for developers: When fixing the issue, add 'Link:' tags pointing to the report (the mail this one replies to), as explained for in the Linux kernel's documentation; above webpage explains why this is important for tracked regressions. Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression tracker' hat) P.S.: As the Linux kernel's regression tracker I deal with a lot of reports and sometimes miss something important when writing mails like this. If that's the case here, don't hesitate to tell me in a public reply, it's in everyone's interest to set the public record straight.
