[PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/guc: Add work queue to trigger a GT reset

[Matthew Brost]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 05:37:01PM -0800, John Harrison wrote:
> On 1/18/2022 13:43, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > The G2H handler needs to be flushed during a GT reset but a G2H
> > indicating engine reset failure can trigger a GT reset. Add a worker to
> > trigger the GT when a engine reset failure is received to break this
> s/a/an/
> 

Yep.

> > circular dependency.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h        |  5 ++++
> >   .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 23 +++++++++++++++----
> >   2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > index 9d26a86fe557a..60ea8deef5392 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > @@ -119,6 +119,11 @@ struct intel_guc {
> >   		 * function as it might be in an atomic context (no sleeping)
> >   		 */
> >   		struct work_struct destroyed_worker;
> > +		/**
> > +		 * @reset_worker: worker to trigger a GT reset after an engine
> > +		 * reset fails
> > +		 */
> > +		struct work_struct reset_worker;
> >   	} submission_state;
> >   	/**
> > 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 23a40f10d376d..cdd8d691251ff 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > @@ -1746,6 +1746,7 @@ void intel_guc_submission_reset_finish(struct intel_guc *guc)
> >   }
> >   static void destroyed_worker_func(struct work_struct *w);
> > +static void reset_worker_func(struct work_struct *w);
> >   /*
> >    * Set up the memory resources to be shared with the GuC (via the GGTT)
> > @@ -1776,6 +1777,8 @@ int intel_guc_submission_init(struct intel_guc *guc)
> >   	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&guc->submission_state.destroyed_contexts);
> >   	INIT_WORK(&guc->submission_state.destroyed_worker,
> >   		  destroyed_worker_func);
> > +	INIT_WORK(&guc->submission_state.reset_worker,
> > +		  reset_worker_func);
> >   	guc->submission_state.guc_ids_bitmap =
> >   		bitmap_zalloc(NUMBER_MULTI_LRC_GUC_ID(guc), GFP_KERNEL);
> > @@ -4052,6 +4055,17 @@ guc_lookup_engine(struct intel_guc *guc, u8 guc_class, u8 instance)
> >   	return gt->engine_class[engine_class][instance];
> >   }
> > +static void reset_worker_func(struct work_struct *w)
> > +{
> > +	struct intel_guc *guc = container_of(w, struct intel_guc,
> > +					     submission_state.reset_worker);
> > +	struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
> > +
> > +	intel_gt_handle_error(gt, ALL_ENGINES,
> > +			      I915_ERROR_CAPTURE,
> > +			      "GuC failed to reset a engine\n");
> s/a/an/
> 

Yep.

> > +}
> > +
> >   int intel_guc_engine_failure_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc,
> >   					 const u32 *msg, u32 len)
> >   {
> > @@ -4083,10 +4097,11 @@ int intel_guc_engine_failure_process_msg(struct intel_guc *guc,
> >   	drm_err(&gt->i915->drm, "GuC engine reset request failed on %d:%d (%s) because 0x%08X",
> >   		guc_class, instance, engine->name, reason);
> > -	intel_gt_handle_error(gt, engine->mask,
> > -			      I915_ERROR_CAPTURE,
> > -			      "GuC failed to reset %s (reason=0x%08x)\n",
> > -			      engine->name, reason);
> The engine name and reason code are lost from the error capture? I guess we
> still get it in the drm_err above, though. So probably not an issue. We
> shouldn't be getting these from end users and any internal CI run is only
> likely to give us the dmesg, not the error capture anyway! However, still

That was my reasoning on the msg too.

> seems like it is work saving engine->mask in the submission_state structure
> (ORing in, in case there are multiple resets). Clearing it should be safe
> because once a GT reset has happened, we aren't getting any more G2Hs. And
> we can't have multiple message handlers running concurrently, right? So no
> need to protect the OR either.
> 

I could do that but the engine->mask is really only used for the error
capture with GuC submission as any i915 based reset with GuC submission
is a GT reset. Going from engine->mask to ALL_ENGINES will just capture
all engine state before doing a GT reset which probably isn't a bad
thing, right?

I can update the commit message explaining this if that helps.

Matt 

> John.
> 
> 
> > +	/*
> > +	 * A GT reset flushes this worker queue (G2H handler) so we must use
> > +	 * another worker to trigger a GT reset.
> > +	 */
> > +	queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &guc->submission_state.reset_worker);
> >   	return 0;
> >   }
>