Message-ID: <5374E410.1080203@canonical.com>
Date:	Thu, 15 May 2014 17:58:08 +0200
From:	Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>
To:	Christian König <deathsimple@...afone.de>,
	airlied@...ux.ie
CC:	nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 08/16] drm/radeon: use common fence implementation
 for fences

op 15-05-14 17:48, Christian König schreef:
> Am 15.05.2014 16:18, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
>> op 15-05-14 15:19, Christian König schreef:
>>> Am 15.05.2014 15:04, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
>>>> op 15-05-14 11:42, Christian König schreef:
>>>>> Am 15.05.2014 11:38, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
>>>>>> op 15-05-14 11:21, Christian König schreef:
>>>>>>> Am 15.05.2014 03:06, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst:
>>>>>>>> op 14-05-14 17:29, Christian König schreef:
>>>>>>>>>> +    /* did fence get signaled after we enabled the sw irq? */
>>>>>>>>>> +    if (atomic64_read(&fence->rdev->fence_drv[fence->ring].last_seq) >= fence->seq) {
>>>>>>>>>> + radeon_irq_kms_sw_irq_put(fence->rdev, fence->ring);
>>>>>>>>>> +        return false;
>>>>>>>>>> +    }
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> +    fence->fence_wake.flags = 0;
>>>>>>>>>> +    fence->fence_wake.private = NULL;
>>>>>>>>>> +    fence->fence_wake.func = radeon_fence_check_signaled;
>>>>>>>>>> + __add_wait_queue(&fence->rdev->fence_queue, &fence->fence_wake);
>>>>>>>>>> +    fence_get(f);
>>>>>>>>> That looks like a race condition to me. The fence needs to be added to the wait queue before the check, not after.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apart from that the whole approach looks like a really bad idea to me. How for example is lockup detection supposed to happen with this? 
>>>>>>>> It's not a race condition because fence_queue.lock is held when this function is called.
>>>>>>> Ah, I see. That's also the reason why you moved the wake_up_all out of the processing function.
>>>>>> Correct. :-)
>>>>>>>> Lockup's a bit of a weird problem, the changes wouldn't allow core ttm code to handle the lockup any more,
>>>>>>>> but any driver specific wait code would still handle this. I did this by design, because in future patches the wait
>>>>>>>> function may be called from outside of the radeon driver. The official wait function takes a timeout parameter,
>>>>>>>> so lockups wouldn't be fatal if the timeout is set to something like 30*HZ for example, it would still return
>>>>>>>> and report that the function timed out.
>>>>>>> Timeouts help with the detection of the lockup, but not at all with the handling of them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What we essentially need is a wait callback into the driver that is called in non atomic context without any locks held.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This way we can block for the fence to become signaled with a timeout and can then also initiate the reset handling if necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The way you designed the interface now means that the driver never gets a chance to wait for the hardware to become idle and so never has the opportunity to the reset the whole thing.
>>>>>> You could set up a hangcheck timer like intel does, and end up with a reliable hangcheck detection that doesn't depend on cpu waits. :-) Or override the default wait function and restore the old behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> Overriding the default wait function sounds better, please implement it this way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Christian. 
>>>>
>>>> Does this modification look sane?
>>> Adding the timeout is on my todo list for quite some time as well, so this part makes sense.
>>>
>>>> +static long __radeon_fence_wait(struct fence *f, bool intr, long timeout)
>>>> +{
>>>> +    struct radeon_fence *fence = to_radeon_fence(f);
>>>> +    u64 target_seq[RADEON_NUM_RINGS] = {};
>>>> +
>>>> +    target_seq[fence->ring] = fence->seq;
>>>> +    return radeon_fence_wait_seq_timeout(fence->rdev, target_seq, intr, timeout);
>>>> +}
>>> When this call is comming from outside the radeon driver you need to lock rdev->exclusive_lock here to make sure not to interfere with a possible reset.
>> Ah thanks, I'll add that.
>>
>>>>      .get_timeline_name = radeon_fence_get_timeline_name,
>>>>      .enable_signaling = radeon_fence_enable_signaling,
>>>>      .signaled = __radeon_fence_signaled,
>>> Do we still need those callback when we implemented the wait callback?
>> .get_timeline_name is used for debugging (trace events).
>> .signaled is the non-blocking call to check if the fence is signaled or not.
>> .enable_signaling is used for adding callbacks upon fence completion, the default 'fence_default_wait' uses it, so
>> when it works no separate implementation is needed unless you want to do more than just waiting.
>> It's also used when fence_add_callback is called. i915 can be patched to use it. ;-)
>
> I just meant enable_signaling, the other ones are fine with me. The problem with enable_signaling is that it's called with a spin lock held, so we can't sleep.
>
> While resetting the GPU could be moved out into a timer the problem here is that I can't lock rdev->exclusive_lock in such situations.
>
> This means when i915 would call into radeon to enable signaling for a fence we can't make sure that there is not GPU reset running on another CPU. And touching the IRQ registers while a reset is going on is a really good recipe to lockup the whole system.
If you increase the irq counter on all rings before doing a gpu reset, adjust the state and call sw_irq_put when done this race could never happen. Or am I missing something?

~Maarten

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists