[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/27] drm/i915/guc: Fix outstanding G2H accounting

[Daniele Ceraolo Spurio]

On 8/18/2021 11:16 PM, Matthew Brost wrote:
> A small race that could result in incorrect accounting of the number
> of outstanding G2H. Basically prior to this patch we did not increment
> the number of outstanding G2H if we encoutered a GT reset while sending
> a H2G. This was incorrect as the context state had already been updated
> to anticipate a G2H response thus the counter should be incremented.
>
> Also always use helper when decrementing this value.
>
> Fixes: f4eb1f3fe946 ("drm/i915/guc: Ensure G2H response has space in buffer")
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org>
> ---
>   .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 24 ++++++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> index 69faa39da178..32c414aa9009 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> @@ -352,6 +352,12 @@ static inline void set_lrc_desc_registered(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 id,
>   	xa_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->context_lookup, flags);
>   }
>   
> +static void decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc)
> +{
> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h))
> +		wake_up_all(&guc->ct.wq);
> +}
> +
>   static int guc_submission_send_busy_loop(struct intel_guc *guc,
>   					 const u32 *action,
>   					 u32 len,
> @@ -360,11 +366,13 @@ static int guc_submission_send_busy_loop(struct intel_guc *guc,
>   {
>   	int err;
>   
> -	err = intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, len, g2h_len_dw, loop);
> -
> -	if (!err && g2h_len_dw)
> +	if (g2h_len_dw)
>   		atomic_inc(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h);
>   
> +	err = intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, len, g2h_len_dw, loop);
> +	if (err == -EBUSY && g2h_len_dw)
> +		decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(guc);
> +

here you're special casing  -EBUSY, which kind of implies that the 
caller needs to handle this differently, but most callers seem to ignore 
the return code. Is the counter handled somewhere else in case of EBUSY? 
if so, please add a comment about it.

Daniele

>   	return err;
>   }
>   
> @@ -616,7 +624,7 @@ static void scrub_guc_desc_for_outstanding_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc)
>   		init_sched_state(ce);
>   
>   		if (pending_enable || destroyed || deregister) {
> -			atomic_dec(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h);
> +			decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(guc);
>   			if (deregister)
>   				guc_signal_context_fence(ce);
>   			if (destroyed) {
> @@ -635,7 +643,7 @@ static void scrub_guc_desc_for_outstanding_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc)
>   				intel_engine_signal_breadcrumbs(ce->engine);
>   			}
>   			intel_context_sched_disable_unpin(ce);
> -			atomic_dec(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h);
> +			decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(guc);
>   			spin_lock_irqsave(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
>   			guc_blocked_fence_complete(ce);
>   			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> @@ -2583,12 +2591,6 @@ g2h_context_lookup(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 desc_idx)
>   	return ce;
>   }
>   
> -static void decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc)
> -{
> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h))
> -		wake_up_all(&guc->ct.wq);
> -}
> -
>   int intel_guc_deregister_done_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc,
>   					  const u32 *msg,
>   					  u32 len)