Message-ID: <bb2f68ff-e7bb-40ff-94bd-8ac7cab422ed@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 21:41:04 +0530
From: "Nilawar, Badal" <badal.nilawar@...el.com>
To: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@...el.com>,
	<intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <anshuman.gupta@...el.com>, <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
	<alexander.usyskin@...el.com>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <jgg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw: Reload late binding fw
 in rpm resume


On 23-06-2025 20:56, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>
>
> On 6/18/2025 10:52 PM, Nilawar, Badal wrote:
>>
>> On 19-06-2025 02:35, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/18/2025 12:00 PM, Badal Nilawar wrote:
>>>> Reload late binding fw during runtime resume.
>>>>
>>>> v2: Flush worker during runtime suspend
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@...el.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.c | 2 +-
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.h | 1 +
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c           | 6 ++++++
>>>>   3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.c 
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.c
>>>> index 54aa08c6bdfd..c0be9611c73b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.c
>>>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ static int xe_late_bind_fw_num_fans(struct 
>>>> xe_late_bind *late_bind)
>>>>           return 0;
>>>>   }
>>>>   -static void xe_late_bind_wait_for_worker_completion(struct 
>>>> xe_late_bind *late_bind)
>>>> +void xe_late_bind_wait_for_worker_completion(struct xe_late_bind 
>>>> *late_bind)
>>>>   {
>>>>       struct xe_device *xe = late_bind_to_xe(late_bind);
>>>>       struct xe_late_bind_fw *lbfw;
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.h 
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.h
>>>> index 28d56ed2bfdc..07e437390539 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_late_bind_fw.h
>>>> @@ -12,5 +12,6 @@ struct xe_late_bind;
>>>>     int xe_late_bind_init(struct xe_late_bind *late_bind);
>>>>   int xe_late_bind_fw_load(struct xe_late_bind *late_bind);
>>>> +void xe_late_bind_wait_for_worker_completion(struct xe_late_bind 
>>>> *late_bind);
>>>>     #endif
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
>>>> index ff749edc005b..91923fd4af80 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>>>>   #include "xe_gt.h"
>>>>   #include "xe_guc.h"
>>>>   #include "xe_irq.h"
>>>> +#include "xe_late_bind_fw.h"
>>>>   #include "xe_pcode.h"
>>>>   #include "xe_pxp.h"
>>>>   #include "xe_trace.h"
>>>> @@ -460,6 +461,8 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_suspend(struct xe_device *xe)
>>>>       if (err)
>>>>           goto out;
>>>>   + xe_late_bind_wait_for_worker_completion(&xe->late_bind);
>>>
>>> I thing this can deadlock, because you do an rpm_put from within the 
>>> worker and if that's the last put it'll end up here and wait for the 
>>> worker to complete.
>>> We could probably just skip this wait, because the worker can handle 
>>> rpm itself. What we might want to be careful about is to nor 
>>> re-queue it (from xe_late_bind_fw_load below) if it's currently 
>>> being executed; we could also just let the fw be loaded twice if we 
>>> hit that race condition, that shouldn't be an issue apart from doing 
>>> something not needed.
>>
>> In xe_pm_runtime_get/_put, deadlocks are avoided by verifying the 
>> condition (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current).
>
> Isn't that for calls to rpm_get/put done from within the 
> rpm_suspend/resume code? This is not the case here, we're not 
> deadlocking on the rpm lock, we're deadlocking on the worker.
>
> The error flow as I see it here would be as follow:
>
>     rpm refcount is 1, owned by thread X
>     worker starts
>     worker takes rpm [rpm refcount now 2]
>     thread X releases rpm [rpm refcount now 1]
>     worker releases rpm [rpm refcount now 0]
>         rpm_suspend is called from within the worker
rpm_suspend is not called within worker. First device will move to idle 
state, then via auto suspend flow it will be runtime suspended, all run 
time pm state changes will happen from rpm worker.

>     xe_pm_write_callback_task is called
>             flush_work is called -> deadlock
>
> I don't see how the callback_task() code can block the flush_work from 
> deadlocking here.

flush_work, as per my understanding, will wait for work to finish 
executing last queuing instance. It runs the worker from the same thread 
it is being flushed.  So how deadlock will happen?

>
> Also, what happens if when the worker starts the rpm refcount is 0? 
> Assuming the deadlock issue is not there.
>
>     worker starts
>     worker takes rpm [rpm refcount now 1]
>         rpm_resume is called
>             worker is re-queued
>     worker releases rpm [rpm refcount now 0]
>     worker exits
>     worker re-starts -> go back to beginning
>
> This second issue should be easily fixed by using pm_get_if_in_use 
> from the worker, to not load the late_bind table if we're 
> rpm_suspended since we'll do it when someone else resumes the device.

Yes this makes sense, I will take care of this in next revision.

Badal

>
> Daniele
>
>>
>> Badal
>>
>>>
>>> Daniele
>>>
>>>> +
>>>>       /*
>>>>        * Applying lock for entire list op as xe_ttm_bo_destroy and 
>>>> xe_bo_move_notify
>>>>        * also checks and deletes bo entry from user fault list.
>>>> @@ -550,6 +553,9 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
>>>>         xe_pxp_pm_resume(xe->pxp);
>>>>   +    if (xe->d3cold.allowed)
>>>> +        xe_late_bind_fw_load(&xe->late_bind);
>>>> +
>>>>   out:
>>>>       xe_rpm_lockmap_release(xe);
>>>>       xe_pm_write_callback_task(xe, NULL);
>>>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists