[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <93cbaa9f-6ec3-5843-7527-8e81b3ee091d@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 09:08:28 +0000
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@...ux.intel.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] drm/i915: add guard page to ggtt->error_capture
On 08/03/2023 15:39, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> Write-combining memory allows speculative reads by CPU.
> ggtt->error_capture is WC mapped to CPU, so CPU/MMU can try
> to prefetch memory beyond the error_capture, ie it tries
> to read memory pointed by next PTE in GGTT.
> If this PTE points to invalid address DMAR errors will occur.
> This behaviour was observed on ADL and RPL platforms.
> To avoid it, guard scratch page should be added after error_capture.
> The patch fixes the most annoying issue with error capture but
> since WC reads are used also in other places there is a risk similar
> problem can affect them as well.
>
> v2:
> - modified commit message (I hope the diagnosis is correct),
> - added bug checks to ensure scratch is initialized on gen3 platforms.
> CI produces strange stacktrace for it suggesting scratch[0] is NULL,
> to be removed after resolving the issue with gen3 platforms.
> v3:
> - removed bug checks, replaced with gen check.
> v4:
> - change code for scratch page insertion to support all platforms,
> - add info in commit message there could be more similar issues
> v5:
> - check for nop_clear_range instead of gen8 (Tvrtko),
> - re-insert scratch pages on resume (Tvrtko)
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@...el.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
> index b925da42c7cfc4..8fb700fde85c8f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
> @@ -502,6 +502,21 @@ static void cleanup_init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
> mutex_destroy(&ggtt->error_mutex);
> }
>
> +static void
> +ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt, u64 offset, u64 length)
> +{
> + struct i915_address_space *vm = &ggtt->vm;
> +
> + if (vm->clear_range != nop_clear_range)
Hm I thought usually we would add a prefix for exported stuff, like in
this case i915_vm_nop_clear_range, however I see intel_gtt.h exports a
bunch of stuff with no prefixes already so I guess you could continue
like that by inertia. The conundrum also could have been avoided if you
left it static (leaving out dpt and mock_gtt patches) but no strong
opinion from me.
> + return vm->clear_range(vm, offset, length);
> +
> + while (length > 0) {
> + vm->insert_page(vm, px_dma(vm->scratch[0]), offset, I915_CACHE_NONE, 0);
> + offset += I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
> + length -= I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
> + }
> +}
> +
> static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
> {
> /*
> @@ -550,8 +565,12 @@ static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
> * paths, and we trust that 0 will remain reserved. However,
> * the only likely reason for failure to insert is a driver
> * bug, which we expect to cause other failures...
> + *
> + * Since CPU can perform speculative reads on error capture
> + * (write-combining allows it) add scratch page after error
> + * capture to avoid DMAR errors.
> */
> - ggtt->error_capture.size = I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
> + ggtt->error_capture.size = 2 * I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
> ggtt->error_capture.color = I915_COLOR_UNEVICTABLE;
> if (drm_mm_reserve_node(&ggtt->vm.mm, &ggtt->error_capture))
> drm_mm_insert_node_in_range(&ggtt->vm.mm,
> @@ -561,11 +580,15 @@ static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
> 0, ggtt->mappable_end,
> DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW);
> }
> - if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture))
> + if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture)) {
> + u64 start = ggtt->error_capture.start;
> + u64 size = ggtt->error_capture.size;
> +
> + ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(ggtt, start, size);
> drm_dbg(&ggtt->vm.i915->drm,
> "Reserved GGTT:[%llx, %llx] for use by error capture\n",
> - ggtt->error_capture.start,
> - ggtt->error_capture.start + ggtt->error_capture.size);
> + start, start + size);
> + }
>
> /*
> * The upper portion of the GuC address space has a sizeable hole
> @@ -1256,6 +1279,10 @@ void i915_ggtt_resume(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
>
> flush = i915_ggtt_resume_vm(&ggtt->vm);
>
> + if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture))
> + ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(ggtt, ggtt->error_capture.start,
> + ggtt->error_capture.size);
Maybe it belongs in i915_ggtt_resume_vm since that one deals with PTEs?
Looks like it to me, but ack either way.
Regards,
Tvrtko
> +
> ggtt->invalidate(ggtt);
>
> if (flush)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists