Message-ID: <5f12c70e.c0426.1723c8e0549.Coremail.dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn>
Date:   Fri, 22 May 2020 21:23:59 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From:   dinghao.liu@....edu.cn
To:     "Steven Price" <steven.price@....com>
Cc:     kjlu@....edu, "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>,
        "Tomeu Vizoso" <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
        "Alyssa Rosenzweig" <alyssa.rosenzweig@...labora.com>,
        "David Airlie" <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        "Daniel Vetter" <daniel@...ll.ch>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] drm/panfrost: fix runtime pm imbalance on error


Thank you for your further explanation! It's all clear for me and I 
will write a new patch to fix this imbalance.

Regards,
Dinghao
> On 21/05/2020 08:00, dinghao.liu@....edu.cn wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> > 
> > There are two bailing out points in panfrost_job_hw_submit(): one is
> > the error path beginning from pm_runtime_get_sync(), the other one is
> > the error path beginning from WARN_ON() in the if statement. The pm
> > imbalance fixed in this patch is between these two paths. I think the
> > caller of panfrost_job_hw_submit() cannot distinguish this imbalance
> > outside this function.
> 
> My point is the caller expects panfrost_job_hw_submit() to increase the 
> PM reference count. Since panfrost_job_hw_submit() cannot return an 
> error (it's void return) we cannot signal to the caller that the 
> reference hasn't been taken.
> 
> > panfrost_job_timedout() calls pm_runtime_put_noidle() for every job it
> > finds, but all jobs are added to the pfdev->jobs just before calling
> > panfrost_job_hw_submit(). Therefore I think the imbalance still exists.
> 
> My point's exactly that - the "jobs are added to pfdev->jobs just before 
> calling panfrost_job_hw_submit()". Since we don't have a way for 
> panfrost_job_hw_submit() to fail it must unconditionally take any 
> references that will then be freed later on.
> 
> > But I'm not very sure if we should add pm_runtime_put on the error path
> > after pm_runtime_get_sync(), or remove pm_runtime_put one the error path
> > after WARN_ON().
> 
> The pm_runtime_put after the WARN_ON() is a bug. Sorry this is probably 
> what confused you - clearly the WARN_ON() situation is never meant to 
> happen in the first place, so hopefully this isn't actually possible.
> 
> Feel free to send a patch removing it! ;)
> 
> > As for the problem about panfrost_devfreq_record_busy(), this may be a
> > new bug and requires independent patch to fix it.
> 
> Indeed, I'll post a proper patch for that later - I just spotted it 
> while looking at the code.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> > Regards,
> > Dinghao
> > 
> > 
> >> On 20/05/2020 12:05, Dinghao Liu wrote:
> >>> pm_runtime_get_sync() increments the runtime PM usage counter even
> >>> the call returns an error code. Thus a pairing decrement is needed
> >>> on the error handling path to keep the counter balanced.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu <dinghao.liu@....edu.cn>
> >>
> >> Actually I think we have the opposite problem. To be honest we don't
> >> handle this situation very well. By the time panfrost_job_hw_submit() is
> >> called the job has already been added to the pfdev->jobs array, so it's
> >> considered submitted even if it never actually lands on the hardware. So
> >> in the case of this function bailing out early we will then (eventually)
> >> hit a timeout and trigger a GPU reset.
> >>
> >> panfrost_job_timedout() iterates through the pfdev->jobs array and calls
> >> pm_runtime_put_noidle() for each job it finds. So there's no inbalance
> >> here that I can see.
> >>
> >> Have you actually observed the situation where pm_runtime_get_sync()
> >> returns a failure?
> >>
> >> HOWEVER, it appears that by bailing out early the call to
> >> panfrost_devfreq_record_busy() is never made, which as far as I can see
> >> means that there may be an extra call to panfrost_devfreq_record_idle()
> >> when the jobs have timed out. Which could underflow the counter.
> >>
> >> But equally looking at panfrost_job_timedout(), we only call
> >> panfrost_devfreq_record_idle() *once* even though multiple jobs might be
> >> processed.
> >>
> >> There's a completely untested patch below which in theory should fix that...
> >>
> >> Steve
> >>
> >> ----8<---
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> >> index 7914b1570841..f9519afca29d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> >> @@ -145,6 +145,8 @@ static void panfrost_job_hw_submit(struct
> >> panfrost_job *job, int js)
> >>    	u64 jc_head = job->jc;
> >>    	int ret;
> >>
> >> +	panfrost_devfreq_record_busy(pfdev);
> >> +
> >>    	ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pfdev->dev);
> >>    	if (ret < 0)
> >>    		return;
> >> @@ -155,7 +157,6 @@ static void panfrost_job_hw_submit(struct
> >> panfrost_job *job, int js)
> >>    	}
> >>
> >>    	cfg = panfrost_mmu_as_get(pfdev, &job->file_priv->mmu);
> >> -	panfrost_devfreq_record_busy(pfdev);
> >>
> >>    	job_write(pfdev, JS_HEAD_NEXT_LO(js), jc_head & 0xFFFFFFFF);
> >>    	job_write(pfdev, JS_HEAD_NEXT_HI(js), jc_head >> 32);
> >> @@ -410,12 +411,12 @@ static void panfrost_job_timedout(struct
> >> drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> >>    	for (i = 0; i < NUM_JOB_SLOTS; i++) {
> >>    		if (pfdev->jobs[i]) {
> >>    			pm_runtime_put_noidle(pfdev->dev);
> >> +			panfrost_devfreq_record_idle(pfdev);
> >>    			pfdev->jobs[i] = NULL;
> >>    		}
> >>    	}
> >>    	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pfdev->js->job_lock, flags);
> >>
> >> -	panfrost_devfreq_record_idle(pfdev);
> >>    	panfrost_device_reset(pfdev);
> >>
> >>    	for (i = 0; i < NUM_JOB_SLOTS; i++)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists