On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:11:47PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
>
> Resending my r-b...
It's not enough, even retrying the reset a few times, we still
eventually get a timeout.
This is just the usual
10: 0xffffffff
20: goto 10
hanging batch
>
> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > If at first we don't succeed, try again.
> >
> > Running the reset and recovery routines in a loop ends in a "reset
> > request timeout" with a mtbf of an hour on Braswell. This is eerily
> > similar to the unrecoverable reset condition that first prompted us to
> > use the reset-request mechanism in commit 7fd2d26921d1 ("drm/i915: Reset
> > request handling for gen8+"). Repeating the reset request makes the
> > failure much harder to reproduce (but there is no reason to believe that
> > it is more than mere paper over a timing or other issue).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Arun Siluvery <arun.siluvery@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 24 +++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > index e9f68cd56e32..1be8ced03ba5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> > @@ -1688,20 +1688,22 @@ int intel_wait_for_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > static int gen8_request_engine_reset(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > {
> > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = engine->i915;
> > - int ret;
> > + int loop = 3;
> >
>
> retries?
>
> > - I915_WRITE_FW(RING_RESET_CTL(engine->mmio_base),
> > - _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(RESET_CTL_REQUEST_RESET));
> > + do {
> > + I915_WRITE_FW(RING_RESET_CTL(engine->mmio_base),
> > + _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(RESET_CTL_REQUEST_RESET));
> >
> > - ret = intel_wait_for_register_fw(dev_priv,
> > - RING_RESET_CTL(engine->mmio_base),
> > - RESET_CTL_READY_TO_RESET,
> > - RESET_CTL_READY_TO_RESET,
> > - 700);
> > - if (ret)
> > - DRM_ERROR("%s: reset request timeout\n", engine->name);
> > + if (!intel_wait_for_register_fw(dev_priv,
> > + RING_RESET_CTL(engine->mmio_base),
> > + RESET_CTL_READY_TO_RESET,
> > + RESET_CTL_READY_TO_RESET,
> > + 700))
>
>
> Did you check between the write didn't stick vs the readyness didn't
> signal?
The read will flush the write. So reading back the bit we just set shows
us that the hw is not yet ready.
Shouldn't we also be waiting for the reest bit to clear on cancel? And
verifying that the reset itself did?
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
index 6b84bd63310c..36d9a485b788 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
@@ -1701,6 +1701,9 @@ static void gen8_unrequest_engine_reset(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
I915_WRITE_FW(RING_RESET_CTL(engine->mmio_base),
_MASKED_BIT_DISABLE(RESET_CTL_REQUEST_RESET));
+ intel_wait_for_register_fw(dev_priv,
+ RING_RESET_CTL(engine->mmio_base),
+ RESET_CTL_READY_TO_RESET, 0, 700);
}
static int gen8_reset_engines(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
@@ -1708,18 +1711,18 @@ static int gen8_reset_engines(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
{
struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
unsigned int tmp;
+ int ret = -EIO;
for_each_engine_masked(engine, dev_priv, engine_mask, tmp)
if (gen8_request_engine_reset(engine))
goto not_ready;
- return gen6_reset_engines(dev_priv, engine_mask);
+ ret = gen6_reset_engines(dev_priv, engine_mask);
-not_ready:
for_each_engine_masked(engine, dev_priv, engine_mask, tmp)
gen8_unrequest_engine_reset(engine);
- return -EIO;
+ return ret;
}
typedef int (*reset_func)(struct drm_i915_private *, unsigned engine_mask);
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html