[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e18b057b-f5da-48a4-7086-9bc64d3819fb@quicinc.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 20:40:07 +0530
From: Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@...cinc.com>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
CC: freedreno <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Bjorn Andersson" <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Jordan Crouse <jordan@...micpenguin.net>,
Jonathan Marek <jonathan@...ek.ca>,
"Douglas Anderson" <dianders@...omium.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
"Dmitry Baryshkov" <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] drm/msm: Fix cx collapse issue during recovery
On 7/31/2022 9:52 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 2:41 AM Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@...cinc.com> wrote:
>> There are some hardware logic under CX domain. For a successful
>> recovery, we should ensure cx headswitch collapses to ensure all the
>> stale states are cleard out. This is especially true to for a6xx family
>> where we can GMU co-processor.
>>
>> Currently, cx doesn't collapse due to a devlink between gpu and its
>> smmu. So the *struct gpu device* needs to be runtime suspended to ensure
>> that the iommu driver removes its vote on cx gdsc.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo@...cinc.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>> - Simplied the pm refcount drop since we have just a single refcount now
>> for all active submits
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c | 4 +---
>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
>> index 42ed9a3..1b049c5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c
>> @@ -1193,7 +1193,7 @@ static void a6xx_recover(struct msm_gpu *gpu)
>> {
>> struct adreno_gpu *adreno_gpu = to_adreno_gpu(gpu);
>> struct a6xx_gpu *a6xx_gpu = to_a6xx_gpu(adreno_gpu);
>> - int i;
>> + int i, active_submits;
>>
>> adreno_dump_info(gpu);
>>
>> @@ -1210,8 +1210,26 @@ static void a6xx_recover(struct msm_gpu *gpu)
>> */
>> gmu_write(&a6xx_gpu->gmu, REG_A6XX_GMU_GMU_PWR_COL_KEEPALIVE, 0);
>>
>> - gpu->funcs->pm_suspend(gpu);
>> - gpu->funcs->pm_resume(gpu);
>> + pm_runtime_dont_use_autosuspend(&gpu->pdev->dev);
>> +
>> + /* active_submit won't change until we make a submission */
>> + mutex_lock(&gpu->active_lock);
>> + active_submits = gpu->active_submits;
>> + mutex_unlock(&gpu->active_lock);
>> +
>> + /* Drop the rpm refcount from active submits */
>> + if (active_submits)
>> + pm_runtime_put(&gpu->pdev->dev);
> Couldn't this race with an incoming submit triggering active_submits
> to transition 0 -> 1? Moving the mutex_unlock() would solve this.
>
> Actually, maybe just move the mutex_unlock() to the end of the entire
> sequence. You could also clear gpu->active_submits and restore it
> before unlocking, so you can drop the removal of the WARN_ON_ONCE
> (patch 6/8) which should otherwise be squashed into this patch to keep
> things bisectable
Because we are holding gpu->lock, there won't be any new submissions to
gpu. But I agree with your both suggestions.
-Akhil.
>
>> +
>> + /* And the final one from recover worker */
>> + pm_runtime_put_sync(&gpu->pdev->dev);
>> +
>> + pm_runtime_use_autosuspend(&gpu->pdev->dev);
>> +
>> + if (active_submits)
>> + pm_runtime_get(&gpu->pdev->dev);
>> +
>> + pm_runtime_get_sync(&gpu->pdev->dev);
>>
>> msm_gpu_hw_init(gpu);
>> }
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c
>> index 1945efb..07e55a6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c
>> @@ -426,9 +426,7 @@ static void recover_worker(struct kthread_work *work)
>> /* retire completed submits, plus the one that hung: */
>> retire_submits(gpu);
>>
>> - pm_runtime_get_sync(&gpu->pdev->dev);
>> gpu->funcs->recover(gpu);
>> - pm_runtime_put_sync(&gpu->pdev->dev);
> Hmm, could this have some fallout on earlier gens?
>
> I guess I should extend the igt msm_recovery test to run on things
> prior to a6xx..
>
> BR,
> -R
No, because of patch 3/8 in this series.
-Akhil.
>
>> /*
>> * Replay all remaining submits starting with highest priority
>> @@ -445,7 +443,7 @@ static void recover_worker(struct kthread_work *work)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - pm_runtime_put_sync(&gpu->pdev->dev);
>> + pm_runtime_put(&gpu->pdev->dev);
>>
>> mutex_unlock(&gpu->lock);
>>
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists