[PATCH 2/2] drm/amdgpu: Add kernel parameter support for ignoring bad page threshold

[Russell, Kent]

[AMD Official Use Only]



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tuikov, Luben <Luben.Tuikov at amd.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:21 PM
> To: Russell, Kent <Kent.Russell at amd.com>; amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Joshi, Mukul <Mukul.Joshi at amd.com>; Kuehling, Felix <Felix.Kuehling at amd.com>;
> Tuikov, Luben <Luben.Tuikov at amd.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/amdgpu: Add kernel parameter support for ignoring bad page
> threshold
> 
> On 2021-10-21 11:57, Kent Russell wrote:
> > When a GPU hits the bad_page_threshold, it will not be initialized by
> > the amdgpu driver. This means that the table cannot be cleared, nor can
> > information gathering be performed (getting serial number, BDF, etc).
> >
> > If the bad_page_threshold kernel parameter is set to -2,
> > continue to initialize the GPU, while printing a warning to dmesg that
> > this action has been done
> >
> > Cc: Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov at amd.com>
> > Cc: Mukul Joshi <Mukul.Joshi at amd.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Kent Russell <kent.russell at amd.com>
> > Acked-by: Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling at amd.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov at amd.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h            |  1 +
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c        |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras_eeprom.c | 12 ++++++++----
> >  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> > index d58e37fd01f4..b85b67a88a3d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
> > @@ -205,6 +205,7 @@ extern struct amdgpu_mgpu_info mgpu_info;
> >  extern int amdgpu_ras_enable;
> >  extern uint amdgpu_ras_mask;
> >  extern int amdgpu_bad_page_threshold;
> > +extern bool amdgpu_ignore_bad_page_threshold;
> >  extern struct amdgpu_watchdog_timer amdgpu_watchdog_timer;
> >  extern int amdgpu_async_gfx_ring;
> >  extern int amdgpu_mcbp;
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
> > index 96bd63aeeddd..eee3cf874e7a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
> > @@ -877,7 +877,7 @@ module_param_named(reset_method, amdgpu_reset_method,
> int, 0444);
> >   * result in the GPU entering bad status when the number of total
> >   * faulty pages by ECC exceeds the threshold value.
> >   */
> > -MODULE_PARM_DESC(bad_page_threshold, "Bad page threshold(-1 = auto(default
> value), 0 = disable bad page retirement)");
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(bad_page_threshold, "Bad page threshold(-1 = auto(default
> value), 0 = disable bad page retirement, -2 = ignore bad page threshold)");
> >  module_param_named(bad_page_threshold, amdgpu_bad_page_threshold, int, 0444);
> >
> >  MODULE_PARM_DESC(num_kcq, "number of kernel compute queue user want to setup
> (8 if set to greater than 8 or less than 0, only affect gfx 8+)");
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras_eeprom.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras_eeprom.c
> > index ce5089216474..bd6ed43b0df2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras_eeprom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ras_eeprom.c
> > @@ -1104,11 +1104,15 @@ int amdgpu_ras_eeprom_init(struct
> amdgpu_ras_eeprom_control *control,
> >  			res = amdgpu_ras_eeprom_correct_header_tag(control,
> >  								   RAS_TABLE_HDR_VAL);
> >  		} else {
> > -			*exceed_err_limit = true;
> > -			dev_err(adev->dev,
> > -				"RAS records:%d exceed threshold:%d, "
> > -				"GPU will not be initialized. Replace this GPU or increase the
> threshold",
> > +			dev_err(adev->dev, "RAS records:%d exceed threshold:%d",
> >  				control->ras_num_recs, ras->bad_page_cnt_threshold);
> 
> I thought this would all go in a single set of patches. I wasn't aware a singleton patch went
> in already which changed just this line--this change was always a part of a patch set.
> 

Ah sorry. When you reviewed the original patch2 clarifying the message, I merged it and then re-submitted the remaining 3 (which pared down to 2) for review. Sorry for the confusion, I was trying to minimize the number of moving parts.

 Kent

> Regards,
> Luben
> 
> > +			if (amdgpu_bad_page_threshold == -2) {
> > +				dev_warn(adev->dev, "GPU will be initialized due to
> bad_page_threshold = -2.");
> > +				res = 0;
> > +			} else {
> > +				*exceed_err_limit = true;
> > +				dev_err(adev->dev, "GPU will not be initialized. Replace this
> GPU or increase the threshold.");
> > +			}
> >  		}
> >  	} else {
> >  		DRM_INFO("Creating a new EEPROM table");