On 7/21/2022 02:24, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/07/2022 01:54, John Harrison wrote:
On 7/19/2022 02:42, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 19/07/2022 01:05, John Harrison wrote:
On 7/18/2022 05:15, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 13/07/2022 00:31, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
Remove bogus GEM_BUG_ON which compared kernel context timeline
seqno to
seqno in memory on engine PM unpark. If a GT reset occurred these
values
might not match as a kernel context could be skipped. This bug was
hidden by always switching to a kernel context on park (execlists
requirement).
Reset of the kernel context? Under which circumstances does that
happen?
As per description, the issue is with full GT reset.
It is unclear if the claim is this to be a general problem or the
assert is only invalid with the GuC. Lack of a CI reported issue
suggests it is not a generic problem?
Currently it is not an issue because we always switch to the kernel
context because that's how execlists works and the entire driver is
fundamentally based on execlist operation. When we stop using the
kernel context as a (non-functional) barrier when using GuC
submission, then you would see an issue without this fix.
Let me pick this point to try again - I am simply asking for a clear
description of steps which lead to the problem, instead of, what I
find are, generic and hard to penetrate statements of invalid
assumptions etc.
I picked this spot because of this: "When we stop using the kernel
context as a (non-functional) barrier when using GuC submission, then
you would see an issue without this fix."
I point to 363324292710 ("drm/i915/guc: Don't call
switch_to_kernel_context with GuC submission"). Hence it is not when
but it already happened. Which in my mind then does not compute - I
can't grok the explanation which appears to fall over on the first claim.
Or perhaps the bug on is already firing today on every GuC enabled
machine in the CI? In which case there is a Fixes: link to be added?
I have asked about, if we have 363324292710, and if this patch is
removing the seqno bug on, why it is not removing something more in
__engine_unpark, gated on "is guc"? Like ss there a point to
sanitizing the context which wasn't lost, because it wasn't used to
park the engine with?
Or if the problem can't be hit with execlists (in case reset claim
from the commit message misleading), why shouldn't the bug on be
changed to contain the !guc condition instead of being remove?
I am simply asking for a clear explanation of the conditions and steps
which lead to the bug on incorrectly firing. It doesn't have to be
long text or anything like that, just clear so we can close this and
move on.
Regards,
Tvrtko
@Matthew Brost, it's your patch, do you recall the details of when it
was going bang? I vaguely recall something about it being hit in local
testing pre-merge rather than by CI post-merge.
John.
Issue is with GuC, GuC and full reset, or with full reset regardless
of the backend?
The issue is with code making invalid assumptions. The assumption is
currently not failing because the execlist backend requires the use
of a barrier context for a bunch of operations. The GuC backend does
not require this. In fact, the barrier context does not function as a
barrier when the scheduler is external to i915. Hence the desire to
remove the use of the barrier context from generic i915 operation and
make it only used when in execlist mode. At that point, the invalid
assumption will no longer work and the BUG will fire.
If issue is only with GuC patch should have drm/i915/guc prefix as
minimum. But if it actually only becomes a problem when GuC backend
stops parking with the kernel context when I think the whole unpark
code should be refactored in a cleaner way than just removing the
one assert. Otherwise what is the point of leaving everything else
in there?
Or if the issue is backend agnostic, *if* full reset happens to hit
during parking, then it is different. Wouldn't that be a race with
parking and reset which probably shouldn't happen to start with.
The issue is neither with GuC nor with resets, GT or otherwise. The
issue is with generic i915 code making assumptions about backend
implementations that are only correct for the execlist implementation.
John.
Regards,
Tvrtko
John.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
index b0a4a2dbe3ee9..fb3e1599d04ec 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
@@ -68,8 +68,6 @@ static int __engine_unpark(struct intel_wakeref
*wf)
ce->timeline->seqno,
READ_ONCE(*ce->timeline->hwsp_seqno),
ce->ring->emit);
- GEM_BUG_ON(ce->timeline->seqno !=
- READ_ONCE(*ce->timeline->hwsp_seqno));
}
if (engine->unpark)
