[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f1d8b7af-8933-455c-a6fd-cae935ff24f2@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 09:42:13 -0700
From: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@...el.com>
To: "Nilawar, Badal" <badal.nilawar@...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 6/23/2025 9:11 AM, Nilawar, Badal wrote:
>
> 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?
My bad, for some reason I was convinced that we were doing a sync
suspend, instead of going through the rpm worker. You're correct, no
deadlock here.
Daniele
>
>>
>> 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