Date:   Wed, 10 Aug 2022 18:13:18 -0400
From:   Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>
To:     "Lin, Wayne" <Wayne.Lin@....com>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Cc:     Ville Syrjälä 
        <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>, "Zuo, Jerry" <Jerry.Zuo@....com>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
        Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
        "Lakha, Bhawanpreet" <Bhawanpreet.Lakha@....com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC 15/18] drm/display/dp_mst: Skip releasing payloads
 if last connected port isn't connected

On Wed, 2022-08-10 at 03:28 +0000, Lin, Wayne wrote:
> Hi Lyude,
> Thanks for your time and sorry for late response!
> 
> It's described in 5.6.1.3 of DP spec 2.0: 
> "MST branch device, in addition to waiting for the ACK from its immediate 
> Upstream device, should either wait for the ALLOCATE_PAYLOAD message
> transaction with a PBN value equal to 0 from the MST Source device for 
> de-allocating the time slot assigned to the VC Payload that is routed to the
> unplugged DFP or for 2 seconds, whichever occurs first."

oooh! Thank you for posting this, I totally missed the bit that says "or for 2
seconds, whichever occurs first." That certainly explains a lot.

> 
> > > commit 3769e4c0af5b ("drm/dp_mst: Avoid to mess up payload table by
> > > ports in stale topology") was trying to skip updating payload for a
> > > target which is no longer existing in the current topology rooted at
> > > mgr->mst_primary. I passed "mgr->mst_primary" to
> > > drm_dp_mst_port_downstream_of_branch() previously.
> > > Sorry, I might not fully understand the issue you've seen. Could you
> > > elaborate on this more please?
> > > 
> > > Thanks!
> > 
> > I will have to double check this since it's been a month, but basically - the idea
> > of having the topology references in the first place was to be the one check
> > for figuring out whether something's in a topology or not. I've been thinking
> > of maybe trying to replace it at some point, but I think we'd want to do it all
> > over the helpers instead of just in certain spots.
> > 
> > The other thing I noticed was that when I was rewriting this code, I noticed it
> > seemed a lot like we had misunderstood the issue that was causing leaks in
> > the first place. The BAD_PARAM we noticed indicates the payload we're
> > trying to remove on the other end doesn't exist anymore, meaning the
> > branch device in question got rid of any payloads it had active in response to
> > the CSN. In testing though I found that payloads would be automatically
> > released in situations where the last reachable port was marked as
> > disconnected via a previous CSN, but was still reachable otherwise, and not in
> > any other situation. This also seemed to match up with the excerpts in the DP
> > spec that I found, so I assumed it was probably correct.
> 
> IMHO, the main root cause with the commit 3769e4c0af5b ("drm/dp_mst: Avoid
>  to mess up payload table by ports in stale topology") is like what described in the
> commit message. The problem I encountered was when I unplugged the primary
> mst branch device from the system, upper layer didn't try to  release stale streams
> immediately. Instead, it started to gradually release stale streams when I plugged the
> mst hub back to the system. In that case, if we didn't do the check to see whether
> the current request for deallocating payload is for this time topology instance, 
> i.e. might be for the stale topology before I unplug, this deallocation will mess up
> payload allocation for new topology instance.
> 
> As for the CSN, it's a node broadcast request message and not a path message.
> Referring to 2.14.6.1 of DP 2.0 spec: 
> "If the broadcast message is a node request, only the end devices, DP MST
> Source or Sink devices (or DP MST Branch device if Source/Sink are not plugged),
> process the request."
> IMHO, payload should be controlled by source only, by ALLOCATE_PAYLOAD or
> CLEAR_PAYLAOD_ID_TABLE message.
> 
> > 
> > Also, I think using the DDPS field instead of trying to traverse the topology
> > state (which might not have been fully updated yet in response to CSNs)
> > might be a slightly better idea since DDPS may end up being updated before
> > the port has been removed from our in-memory topology, which is kind of
> 
> Thank you Lyude! Just want to confirm with you the below idea to see if I
> understand it correctly. 
> The flow I thought would be (from Source perspective):
> Receive CSN for notifying disconnection event => update physical topology
> connection status (e.g. DDPS, put topology krefcount..) => send hotplug event to
> userspace => userspace asks deallocating payloads for disconnected stream
> sinks =>  put malloc krefcount of disconnected ports/mstbs  => remove ports/mstb
> from in-memory topology.
> I suppose physical topology connection status is updated before sending hotplug
> event to userspace and the in-memory topology still can be referred for stale 
> connection status before payload deallocation completes, i.e. which will put 
> malloc krefcount to eventually destroy disconnected devices in topology in-memory.
> I mean, ideally, sounds like the topology in-memory should be reliable when
> we send ALLOCATE_PAYLOAD as PBN=0. But I understand it definitely is not the
> case if we have krefcount leak.

mhm, I think you made me realize I'm overthinking this a bit now that I've
seen the excerpt you mentioned above, along with the other excerpt about only
the end devices being involved. The main reason I originally foresaw an issue
with this is because the delay with updating the in-memory topology structure
might put us slightly out of sync with the state of the hub on the other end -
causing the hub to spit out an error.

However - based on the excerpts you mentioned I think what I was seeing was
mainly just the 2 second timeout causing things to be released properly - not
specific behavior based on the location in the topology of the branch that was
just unplugged like I originally assumed. I think in that case it probably
does make more sense to go with your fix, so I'll likely drop this and rework
the topology checks you had into this.

> 
> Appreciate for your time and help Lyude!
> 

no, thank you for your help! :) There aren't a whole ton of people who are
this involved with MST so it's very useful to finally have another pair of
eyes looking at all of this. 

>   

-- 
Cheers,
 Lyude Paul (she/her)
 Software Engineer at Red Hat

Powered by blists - more mailing lists