[PATCH v3] drm/scheduler re-insert Bailing job to avoid memleak
Andrey Grodzovsky
andrey.grodzovsky at amd.com
Thu Mar 25 16:32:25 UTC 2021
There are a few issues here like - how u handle non guilty singnaled jobs
in drm_sched_stop, currently looks like you don't call put for them
and just explicitly free them as before. Also sched->free_guilty
seems useless with the new approach. Do we even need the cleanup
mechanism at drm_sched_get_cleanup_job with this approach...
But first - We need Christian to express his opinion on this since
I think he opposed refcounting jobs and that we should concentrate on
fences instead.
Christian - can you chime in here ?
Andrey
On 2021-03-25 5:51 a.m., Zhang, Jack (Jian) wrote:
> [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]
>
>
> Hi, Andrey
>
> Thank you for your good opinions.
>
> I literally agree with you that the refcount could solve the
> get_clean_up_up cocurrent job gracefully, and no need to re-insert the
>
> job back anymore.
>
> I quickly made a draft for this idea as follows:
>
> How do you like it? I will start implement to it after I got your
> acknowledge.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack
>
> +void drm_job_get(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
>
> +{
>
> + kref_get(&s_job->refcount);
>
> +}
>
> +
>
> +void drm_job_do_release(struct kref *ref)
>
> +{
>
> + struct drm_sched_job *s_job;
>
> + struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
>
> +
>
> + s_job = container_of(ref, struct drm_sched_job, refcount);
>
> + sched = s_job->sched;
>
> + sched->ops->free_job(s_job);
>
> +}
>
> +
>
> +void drm_job_put(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
>
> +{
>
> + kref_put(&s_job->refcount, drm_job_do_release);
>
> +}
>
> +
>
> static void drm_sched_job_begin(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
>
> {
>
> struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched = s_job->sched;
>
> + kref_init(&s_job->refcount);
>
> + drm_job_get(s_job);
>
> spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock);
>
> list_add_tail(&s_job->node, &sched->ring_mirror_list);
>
> drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);
>
> @@ -294,17 +316,16 @@ static void drm_sched_job_timedout(struct
> work_struct *work)
>
> * drm_sched_cleanup_jobs. It will be reinserted back
> after sched->thread
>
> * is parked at which point it's safe.
>
> */
>
> - list_del_init(&job->node);
>
> + drm_job_get(job);
>
> spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
>
> job->sched->ops->timedout_job(job);
>
> -
>
> + drm_job_put(job);
>
> /*
>
> * Guilty job did complete and hence needs to be
> manually removed
>
> * See drm_sched_stop doc.
>
> */
>
> if (sched->free_guilty) {
>
> - job->sched->ops->free_job(job);
>
> sched->free_guilty = false;
>
> }
>
> } else {
>
> @@ -355,20 +376,6 @@ void drm_sched_stop(struct drm_gpu_scheduler
> *sched, struct drm_sched_job *bad)
>
> - /*
>
> - * Reinsert back the bad job here - now it's safe as
>
> - * drm_sched_get_cleanup_job cannot race against us and release the
>
> - * bad job at this point - we parked (waited for) any in progress
>
> - * (earlier) cleanups and drm_sched_get_cleanup_job will not be
> called
>
> - * now until the scheduler thread is unparked.
>
> - */
>
> - if (bad && bad->sched == sched)
>
> - /*
>
> - * Add at the head of the queue to reflect it was the
> earliest
>
> - * job extracted.
>
> - */
>
> - list_add(&bad->node, &sched->ring_mirror_list);
>
> -
>
> /*
>
> * Iterate the job list from later to earlier one and either
> deactive
>
> * their HW callbacks or remove them from mirror list if they
> already
>
> @@ -774,7 +781,7 @@ static int drm_sched_main(void *param)
>
> kthread_should_stop());
>
> if (cleanup_job) {
>
> - sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job);
>
> + drm_job_put(cleanup_job);
>
> /* queue timeout for next job */
>
> drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);
>
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>
> index 5a1f068af1c2..b80513eec90f 100644
>
> --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>
> +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
>
> @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ struct drm_sched_fence *to_drm_sched_fence(struct
> dma_fence *f);
>
> * to schedule the job.
>
> */
>
> struct drm_sched_job {
>
> + struct kref refcount;
>
> struct spsc_node queue_node;
>
> struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
>
> struct drm_sched_fence *s_fence;
>
> @@ -198,6 +199,7 @@ struct drm_sched_job {
>
> enum drm_sched_priority s_priority;
>
> struct drm_sched_entity *entity;
>
> struct dma_fence_cb cb;
>
> +
>
> };
>
> *From:* Grodzovsky, Andrey <Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 19, 2021 12:17 AM
> *To:* Zhang, Jack (Jian) <Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com>; Christian König
> <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com>; dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org;
> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; Koenig, Christian
> <Christian.Koenig at amd.com>; Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu at amd.com>; Deng, Emily
> <Emily.Deng at amd.com>; Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>; Tomeu Vizoso
> <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com>; Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH v3] drm/scheduler re-insert Bailing job to avoid
> memleak
>
> On 2021-03-18 6:41 a.m., Zhang, Jack (Jian) wrote:
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]
>
> Hi, Andrey
>
> Let me summarize the background of this patch:
>
> In TDR resubmit step “amdgpu_device_recheck_guilty_jobs,
>
> It will submit first jobs of each ring and do guilty job re-check.
>
> At that point, We had to make sure each job is in the mirror list(or
> re-inserted back already).
>
> But we found the current code never re-insert the job to mirror list
> in the 2^nd , 3^rd job_timeout thread(Bailing TDR thread).
>
> This not only will cause memleak of the bailing jobs. What’s more
> important, the 1^st tdr thread can never iterate the bailing job and
> set its guilty status to a correct status.
>
> Therefore, we had to re-insert the job(or even not delete node) for
> bailing job.
>
> For the above V3 patch, the racing condition in my mind is:
>
> we cannot make sure all bailing jobs are finished before we do
> amdgpu_device_recheck_guilty_jobs.
>
> Yes,that race i missed - so you say that for 2nd, baling thread who
> extracted the job, even if he reinsert it right away back after driver
> callback return DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_BAILING, there is small time slot
> where the job is not in mirror list and so the 1st TDR might miss it and
> not find that 2nd job is the actual guilty job, right ? But, still this
> job will get back into mirror list, and since it's really the bad job,
> it will never signal completion and so on the next timeout cycle it will
> be caught (of course there is a starvation scenario here if more TDRs
> kick in and it bails out again but this is really unlikely).
>
> Based on this insight, I think we have two options to solve this issue:
>
> 1. Skip delete node in tdr thread2, thread3, 4 … (using mutex or
> atomic variable)
> 2. Re-insert back bailing job, and meanwhile use semaphore in each
> tdr thread to keep the sequence as expected and ensure each job
> is in the mirror list when do resubmit step.
>
> For Option1, logic is simpler and we need only one global atomic
> variable:
>
> What do you think about this plan?
>
> Option1 should look like the following logic:
>
> +static atomic_t in_reset; //a global atomic var for
> synchronization
>
> static void drm_sched_process_job(struct dma_fence *f, struct
> dma_fence_cb *cb);
>
> /**
>
> @@ -295,6 +296,12 @@ static void drm_sched_job_timedout(struct
> work_struct *work)
>
> * drm_sched_cleanup_jobs. It will be reinserted
> back after sched->thread
>
> * is parked at which point it's safe.
>
> */
>
> + if (atomic_cmpxchg(&in_reset, 0, 1) != 0) { //skip
> delete node if it’s thead1,2,3,….
>
> + spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
>
> + drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);
>
> + return;
>
> + }
>
> +
>
> list_del_init(&job->node);
>
> spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
>
> @@ -320,6 +327,7 @@ static void drm_sched_job_timedout(struct
> work_struct *work)
>
> spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock);
>
> drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);
>
> spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
>
> + atomic_set(&in_reset, 0); //reset in_reset when the first
> thread finished tdr
>
> }
>
> Technically looks like it should work as you don't access the job
> pointer any longer and so no risk that if signaled it will be freed by
> drm_sched_get_cleanup_job but,you can't just use one global variable an
> by this bailing from TDR when different drivers run their TDR threads in
> parallel, and even for amdgpu, if devices in different XGMI hives or 2
> independent devices in non XGMI setup. There should be defined some kind
> of GPU reset group structure on drm_scheduler level for which this
> variable would be used.
>
> P.S I wonder why we can't just ref-count the job so that even if
> drm_sched_get_cleanup_job would delete it before we had a chance to stop
> the scheduler thread, we wouldn't crash. This would avoid all the dance
> with deletion and reinsertion.
>
> Andrey
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jack
>
> *From:* amd-gfx <amd-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org>
> <mailto:amd-gfx-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> *On Behalf Of *Zhang,
> Jack (Jian)
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:11 PM
> *To:* Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com>
> <mailto:ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com>;
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>;
> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>; Koenig, Christian
> <Christian.Koenig at amd.com> <mailto:Christian.Koenig at amd.com>; Liu,
> Monk <Monk.Liu at amd.com> <mailto:Monk.Liu at amd.com>; Deng, Emily
> <Emily.Deng at amd.com> <mailto:Emily.Deng at amd.com>; Rob Herring
> <robh at kernel.org> <mailto:robh at kernel.org>; Tomeu Vizoso
> <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com> <mailto:tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com>;
> Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com> <mailto:steven.price at arm.com>;
> Grodzovsky, Andrey <Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>
> <mailto:Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH v3] drm/scheduler re-insert Bailing job to
> avoid memleak
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]
>
> [AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]
>
> Hi，Andrey，
>
> Good catch，I will expore this corner case and give feedback soon～
>
> Best，
>
> Jack
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Grodzovsky, Andrey <Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com
> <mailto:Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:50:59 PM
> *To:* Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com
> <mailto:ckoenig.leichtzumerken at gmail.com>>; Zhang, Jack (Jian)
> <Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com <mailto:Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com>>;
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>
> <dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>>;
> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>
> <amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>>; Koenig, Christian
> <Christian.Koenig at amd.com <mailto:Christian.Koenig at amd.com>>; Liu,
> Monk <Monk.Liu at amd.com <mailto:Monk.Liu at amd.com>>; Deng, Emily
> <Emily.Deng at amd.com <mailto:Emily.Deng at amd.com>>; Rob Herring
> <robh at kernel.org <mailto:robh at kernel.org>>; Tomeu Vizoso
> <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com <mailto:tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com>>;
> Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com <mailto:steven.price at arm.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH v3] drm/scheduler re-insert Bailing job to
> avoid memleak
>
> I actually have a race condition concern here - see bellow -
>
> On 2021-03-17 3:43 a.m., Christian König wrote:
> > I was hoping Andrey would take a look since I'm really busy with
> other
> > work right now.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Christian.
> >
> > Am 17.03.21 um 07:46 schrieb Zhang, Jack (Jian):
> >> Hi, Andrey/Crhistian and Team,
> >>
> >> I didn't receive the reviewer's message from maintainers on
> panfrost
> >> driver for several days.
> >> Due to this patch is urgent for my current working project.
> >> Would you please help to give some review ideas?
> >>
> >> Many Thanks,
> >> Jack
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Zhang, Jack (Jian)
> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:20 PM
> >> To: dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>;
> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>;
> >> Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig at amd.com
> <mailto:Christian.Koenig at amd.com>>; Grodzovsky, Andrey
> >> <Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com <mailto:Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>>;
> Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu at amd.com <mailto:Monk.Liu at amd.com>>; Deng,
> >> Emily <Emily.Deng at amd.com <mailto:Emily.Deng at amd.com>>; Rob
> Herring <robh at kernel.org <mailto:robh at kernel.org>>; Tomeu
> >> Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com
> <mailto:tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com>>; Steven Price
> <steven.price at arm.com <mailto:steven.price at arm.com>>
> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] drm/scheduler re-insert Bailing job to
> avoid
> >> memleak
> >>
> >> [AMD Public Use]
> >>
> >> Ping
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Zhang, Jack (Jian)
> >> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:24 PM
> >> To: Jack Zhang <Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com <mailto:Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com>>;
> >> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>;
> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>;
> >> Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig at amd.com
> <mailto:Christian.Koenig at amd.com>>; Grodzovsky, Andrey
> >> <Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com <mailto:Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>>;
> Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu at amd.com <mailto:Monk.Liu at amd.com>>; Deng,
> >> Emily <Emily.Deng at amd.com <mailto:Emily.Deng at amd.com>>; Rob
> Herring <robh at kernel.org <mailto:robh at kernel.org>>; Tomeu
> >> Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com
> <mailto:tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com>>; Steven Price
> <steven.price at arm.com <mailto:steven.price at arm.com>>
> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] drm/scheduler re-insert Bailing job to
> avoid
> >> memleak
> >>
> >> [AMD Public Use]
> >>
> >> Hi, Rob/Tomeu/Steven,
> >>
> >> Would you please help to review this patch for panfrost driver?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jack Zhang
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jack Zhang <Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com <mailto:Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com>>
> >> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:21 PM
> >> To: dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> <mailto:dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org>;
> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>;
> >> Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig at amd.com
> <mailto:Christian.Koenig at amd.com>>; Grodzovsky, Andrey
> >> <Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com <mailto:Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>>;
> Liu, Monk <Monk.Liu at amd.com <mailto:Monk.Liu at amd.com>>; Deng,
> >> Emily <Emily.Deng at amd.com <mailto:Emily.Deng at amd.com>>
> >> Cc: Zhang, Jack (Jian) <Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com
> <mailto:Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com>>
> >> Subject: [PATCH v3] drm/scheduler re-insert Bailing job to avoid
> memleak
> >>
> >> re-insert Bailing jobs to avoid memory leak.
> >>
> >> V2: move re-insert step to drm/scheduler logic
> >> V3: add panfrost's return value for bailing jobs in case it hits
> the
> >> memleak issue.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jack Zhang <Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com
> <mailto:Jack.Zhang1 at amd.com>>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 4 +++-
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c | 8 ++++++--
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c | 4 ++--
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 8 +++++++-
> >> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 1 +
> >> 5 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
> >> index 79b9cc73763f..86463b0f936e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
> >> @@ -4815,8 +4815,10 @@ int amdgpu_device_gpu_recover(struct
> >> amdgpu_device *adev,
> >> job ? job->base.id : -1);
> >> /* even we skipped this reset, still need to set the
> job
> >> to guilty */
> >> - if (job)
> >> + if (job) {
> >> drm_sched_increase_karma(&job->base);
> >> + r = DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_BAILING;
> >> + }
> >> goto skip_recovery;
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
> >> index 759b34799221..41390bdacd9e 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
> >> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ static enum drm_gpu_sched_stat
> >> amdgpu_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
> >> struct amdgpu_job *job = to_amdgpu_job(s_job);
> >> struct amdgpu_task_info ti;
> >> struct amdgpu_device *adev = ring->adev;
> >> + int ret;
> >> memset(&ti, 0, sizeof(struct amdgpu_task_info));
> >> @@ -52,8 +53,11 @@ static enum drm_gpu_sched_stat
> >> amdgpu_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
> >> ti.process_name, ti.tgid, ti.task_name, ti.pid);
> >> if (amdgpu_device_should_recover_gpu(ring->adev)) {
> >> - amdgpu_device_gpu_recover(ring->adev, job);
> >> - return DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_NOMINAL;
> >> + ret = amdgpu_device_gpu_recover(ring->adev, job);
> >> + if (ret == DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_BAILING)
> >> + return DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_BAILING;
> >> + else
> >> + return DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_NOMINAL;
> >> } else {
> >> drm_sched_suspend_timeout(&ring->sched);
> >> if (amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev))
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> >> index 6003cfeb1322..e2cb4f32dae1 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c
> >> @@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ static enum drm_gpu_sched_stat
> >> panfrost_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job
> >> * spurious. Bail out.
> >> */
> >> if (dma_fence_is_signaled(job->done_fence))
> >> - return DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_NOMINAL;
> >> + return DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_BAILING;
> >> dev_err(pfdev->dev, "gpu sched timeout, js=%d, config=0x%x,
> >> status=0x%x, head=0x%x, tail=0x%x, sched_job=%p",
> >> js,
> >> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ static enum drm_gpu_sched_stat
> >> panfrost_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job
> >> /* Scheduler is already stopped, nothing to do. */
> >> if (!panfrost_scheduler_stop(&pfdev->js->queue[js],
> sched_job))
> >> - return DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_NOMINAL;
> >> + return DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_BAILING;
> >> /* Schedule a reset if there's no reset in progress. */
> >> if (!atomic_xchg(&pfdev->reset.pending, 1)) diff --git
> >> a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> >> index 92d8de24d0a1..a44f621fb5c4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> >> @@ -314,6 +314,7 @@ static void drm_sched_job_timedout(struct
> >> work_struct *work) {
> >> struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
> >> struct drm_sched_job *job;
> >> + int ret;
> >> sched = container_of(work, struct drm_gpu_scheduler,
> >> work_tdr.work);
> >> @@ -331,8 +332,13 @@ static void drm_sched_job_timedout(struct
> >> work_struct *work)
> >> list_del_init(&job->list);
> >> spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
> >> - job->sched->ops->timedout_job(job);
> >> + ret = job->sched->ops->timedout_job(job);
> >> + if (ret == DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_BAILING) {
> >> + spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock);
> >> + list_add(&job->node, &sched->ring_mirror_list);
> >> + spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
> >> + }
>
>
> At this point we don't hold GPU reset locks anymore, and so we could
> be racing against another TDR thread from another scheduler ring of
> same
> device
> or another XGMI hive member. The other thread might be in the middle of
> luckless
> iteration of mirror list (drm_sched_stop, drm_sched_start and
> drm_sched_resubmit)
> and so locking job_list_lock will not help. Looks like it's required to
> take all GPU rest locks
> here.
>
> Andrey
>
>
> >> /*
> >> * Guilty job did complete and hence needs to be manually
> >> removed
> >> * See drm_sched_stop doc.
> >> diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> >> b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h index 4ea8606d91fe..8093ac2427ef
> 100644
> >> --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> >> +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> >> @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ enum drm_gpu_sched_stat {
> >> DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_NONE, /* Reserve 0 */
> >> DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_NOMINAL,
> >> DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_ENODEV,
> >> + DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_BAILING,
> >> };
> >> /**
> >> --
> >> 2.25.1
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> amd-gfx mailing list
> >> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>
> >>
> https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=04%7C01%7CAndrey.Grodzovsky%40amd.com%7Ce90f30af0f43444c6aea08d8e91860c4%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637515638213180413%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=NnLqtz%2BZ8%2BweYwCqRinrfkqmhzibNAF6CYSdVqL6xi0%3D&reserved=0
> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=04%7C01%7CJack.Zhang1%40amd.com%7C95b2ff206ee74bbe520a08d8e956f5dd%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637515907000888939%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000&sdata=BGoSfOYiDar8SrpMx%2BsOMWpaMr87bxB%2F9ycu0FhhipA%3D&reserved=0>
>
> >>
> >
>
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list