[PATCH 1/1] drm/scheduler: Job timeout handler returns status (v2)
Lucas Stach
l.stach at pengutronix.de
Thu Dec 17 15:53:25 UTC 2020
Hi Luben,
Am Freitag, dem 11.12.2020 um 15:36 -0500 schrieb Luben Tuikov:
> On 2020-12-10 4:31 a.m., Lucas Stach wrote:
> > Hi Luben,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 09.12.2020, 21:14 -0500 schrieb Luben Tuikov:
> > > This patch does not change current behaviour.
> > >
> > > The driver's job timeout handler now returns
> > > status indicating back to the DRM layer whether
> > > the task (job) was successfully aborted or whether
> > > more time should be given to the task to complete.
> > >
> > > Default behaviour as of this patch, is preserved,
> > > except in obvious-by-comment case in the Panfrost
> > > driver, as documented below.
> > >
> > > All drivers which make use of the
> > > drm_sched_backend_ops' .timedout_job() callback
> > > have been accordingly renamed and return the
> > > would've-been default value of
> > > DRM_TASK_STATUS_ALIVE to restart the task's
> > > timeout timer--this is the old behaviour, and
> > > is preserved by this patch.
> > >
> > > In the case of the Panfrost driver, its timedout
> > > callback correctly first checks if the job had
> > > completed in due time and if so, it now returns
> > > DRM_TASK_STATUS_COMPLETE to notify the DRM layer
> > > that the task can be moved to the done list, to be
> > > freed later. In the other two subsequent checks,
> > > the value of DRM_TASK_STATUS_ALIVE is returned, as
> > > per the default behaviour.
> > >
> > > A more involved driver's solutions can be had
> > > in subequent patches.
> > >
> > > v2: Use enum as the status of a driver's job
> > > timeout callback method.
> > >
> > > Cc: Alexander Deucher <Alexander.Deucher at amd.com>
> > > Cc: Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky at amd.com>
> > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> > > Cc: Lucas Stach <l.stach at pengutronix.de>
> > > Cc: Russell King <linux+etnaviv at armlinux.org.uk>
> > > Cc: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner at gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Qiang Yu <yuq825 at gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>
> > > Cc: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso at collabora.com>
> > > Cc: Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com>
> > > Cc: Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa.rosenzweig at collabora.com>
> > > Cc: Eric Anholt <eric at anholt.net>
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov at amd.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c | 6 +++--
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c | 10 +++++++-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_sched.c | 4 +++-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c | 9 ++++---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 4 +---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_sched.c | 32 +++++++++++++------------
> > > include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 20 +++++++++++++---
> > > 7 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
> > > index ff48101bab55..a111326cbdde 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c
> > > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@
> > > #include "amdgpu.h"
> > > #include "amdgpu_trace.h"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -static void amdgpu_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
> > > +static enum drm_task_status amdgpu_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
> > > {
> > > struct amdgpu_ring *ring = to_amdgpu_ring(s_job->sched);
> > > struct amdgpu_job *job = to_amdgpu_job(s_job);
> > > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ static void amdgpu_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
> > > amdgpu_ring_soft_recovery(ring, job->vmid, s_job->s_fence->parent)) {
> > > DRM_ERROR("ring %s timeout, but soft recovered\n",
> > > s_job->sched->name);
> > > - return;
> > > + return DRM_TASK_STATUS_ALIVE;
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > amdgpu_vm_get_task_info(ring->adev, job->pasid, &ti);
> > > @@ -53,10 +53,12 @@ static void amdgpu_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job *s_job)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > if (amdgpu_device_should_recover_gpu(ring->adev)) {
> > > amdgpu_device_gpu_recover(ring->adev, job);
> > > + return DRM_TASK_STATUS_ALIVE;
> > > } else {
> > > drm_sched_suspend_timeout(&ring->sched);
> > > if (amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev))
> > > adev->virt.tdr_debug = true;
> > > + return DRM_TASK_STATUS_ALIVE;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c
> > > index cd46c882269c..c49516942328 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_sched.c
> > > @@ -82,7 +82,8 @@ static struct dma_fence *etnaviv_sched_run_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> > > return fence;
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -static void etnaviv_sched_timedout_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> > > +static enum drm_task_status etnaviv_sched_timedout_job(struct drm_sched_job
> > > + *sched_job)
> > > {
> > > struct etnaviv_gem_submit *submit = to_etnaviv_submit(sched_job);
> > > struct etnaviv_gpu *gpu = submit->gpu;
> > > @@ -120,9 +121,16 @@ static void etnaviv_sched_timedout_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> > >
> > > drm_sched_resubmit_jobs(&gpu->sched);
> > >
> > > + /* Tell the DRM scheduler that this task needs
> > > + * more time.
> > > + */
> >
> > This comment doesn't match the kernel coding style, but it's also moot
> > as the whole added code block isn't needed. The code just below is
> > identical, so letting execution continue here instead of returning
> > would be the right thing to do, but maybe you mean to return
> > DRM_TASK_STATUS_COMPLETE? It's a bit confusing that aborted and job
> > successfully finished should be signaled with the same return code.
>
> The kernel coding style takes the net/ style of comments, as well
> as the non-net/ style of comments--with a leading /* on an empty line.
> I'm using the net/ style. checkpatch.pl said everything is okay,
> which I've integrated in my git-hooks to check every patch and
> every commit.
As a general rule, use the coding style of the surrounding code. I'm
certainly unwilling to accept net style comments in etnaviv.
> I'm not familiar with the etnaviv's internals and what you see here
> is my best guesstimate.
>
> I understand your confusion that an aborted job and
> successfully completed job BOTH return DRM_TASK_STATUS_COMPLETE,
> right? That's insanity, right? Perhaps we should return ABORTED
> for one and FINISHED for another, no?
>
> So, this is intentional. DRM_TASK_STATUS_COMPLETE doesn't
> indicate the execution status of the task--this is for
> the application client to determine, e.g. Mesa. For DRM and the driver,
> as a transport, the driver wants to tell the DRM layer
> that the DRM layer will *not hear from this task*, that is
> this task is out of the hardware and as such relevant memory can be
> released.
>
> Task was aborted successfully: out of the hardware, free relevant memories.
> Task has completed successfully: out of the hardware, free relevant memories.
>
> As a transport, the driver and DRM don't want to know the internals
> of the task--only if it is, or not, in the hardware, so that krefs
> can be kept or decremented, and relevant memories freed.
>
> By returning "ALIVE", the driver says to DRM, that the task
> is now in the hardware. Maybe it was aborted and reissued,
> maybe it is still executing--we don't care.
>
> The DRM layer can decide what to do next, but the driver
> doesn't control this. For instance, a sensible thing to do
> would be to extend the timeout timer for this task, but this
> something which DRM does, and the driver shouldn't necessarily
> control this--i.e. a simple code is returned, and a clear
> separation between the layers is set.
>
> "ALIVE" is essentially what we did before this patch,
> so here I return this to mimic past behaviour.
> Should COMPLETE be returned? Is the task out of
> the hardware, never to be heard of again?
If you just want a indication of weather the job is still pending in
the hardware or has been completed/thrown out I'm not sure why you
would want to funnel this information through the return value of the
timeout handler. There is already a canonical place for this
information: the jobs hardware fence. If the fence is signaled the job
has left the hardware and you can free all associated resources. If the
fence isn't signaled the job is still pending and you need to keep the
resources around.
Regards,
Lucas
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list