[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/huc: bump timeout for delayed load and reduce print verbosity

[Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele]

On 10/6/2022 1:09 PM, John Harrison wrote:
> On 10/6/2022 10:20, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>> We're observing sporadic HuC delayed load timeouts in CI, due to mei_pxp
>> binding completing later than we expected. HuC is still still loaded
> still still
>
>> when the bind occurs, but in the meantime i915 has started allowing
>> submission to the VCS engines even if HuC is not there.
>> In most of the cases I've observed, the timeout was due to the
>> init/resume of another driver between i915 and mei hitting errors and
>> thus adding an extra delay, but HuC was still loaded before userspace
>> could submit, because the whole resume process time was increased by the
>> delays.
>>
>> Given that there is no upper bound to the delay that can be introduced
>> by other drivers, I've reached the following compromise with the media
>> team:
>>
>> 1) i915 is going to bump the timeout to 5s, to reduce the probability
>> of reaching it. We still expect HuC to be loaded before userspace
>> starts submitting, so increasing the timeout should have no impact on
>> normal operations, but in case something weird happens we don't want to
>> stall video submissions for too long.
>>
>> 2) The media driver will cope with the failing submissions that manage
>> to go through between i915 init/resume complete and HuC loading, if any
>> ever happen. This could cause a small corruption of video playback
>> immediately after a resume (we should be safe on boot because the media
>> driver polls the HUC_STATUS ioctl before starting submissions).
>>
>> Since we're accepting the timeout as a valid outcome, I'm also reducing
>> the print verbosity from error to notice.
>>
>> References: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/7033
>> Fixes: 27536e03271d ("drm/i915/huc: track delayed HuC load with a 
>> fence")
>> Signed-off-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
>> Cc: Tony Ye <tony.ye at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_huc.c | 10 ++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_huc.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_huc.c
>> index 4d1cc383b681..73a6a2fae637 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_huc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_huc.c
>> @@ -52,10 +52,12 @@
>>    * guaranteed for this to happen during boot, so the big timeout is 
>> a safety net
>>    * that we never expect to need.
>>    * MEI-PXP + HuC load usually takes ~300ms, but if the GSC needs to 
>> be resumed
>> - * and/or reset, this can take longer.
>> + * and/or reset, this can take longer. Note that the kernel might 
>> schedule
>> + * other work between the i915 init/resume and the MEI one, which 
>> can add to
>> + * the delay.
>>    */
>>   #define GSC_INIT_TIMEOUT_MS 10000
>> -#define PXP_INIT_TIMEOUT_MS 2000
>> +#define PXP_INIT_TIMEOUT_MS 5000
> If we already have the GSC timeout at 10s, why not just use 10s for 
> PXP as well?

They're different type of operations: mei_gsc is a full on aux driver, 
so it is loaded only once during boot; mei_pxp is a component and it is 
bound on init and then unbound/re-bound on suspend/resume. On resume we 
don't want timeouts excessively big.

>
>>     static int sw_fence_dummy_notify(struct i915_sw_fence *sf,
>>                    enum i915_sw_fence_notify state)
>> @@ -104,8 +106,8 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart 
>> huc_delayed_load_timer_callback(struct hrtimer *hrti
>>       struct intel_huc *huc = container_of(hrtimer, struct intel_huc, 
>> delayed_load.timer);
>>         if (!intel_huc_is_authenticated(huc)) {
>> -        drm_err(&huc_to_gt(huc)->i915->drm,
>> -            "timed out waiting for GSC init to load HuC\n");
>> +        drm_notice(&huc_to_gt(huc)->i915->drm,
>> +               "timed out waiting for GSC init to load HuC\n");
> If the failure is that the MEI PXP module hasn't loaded yet, why is 
> the error message 'waiting for GSC init'? Or can we not distinguish 
> between GSC load timeout and PXP load timeout? In which case should 
> the message refer to 'GSC/PXP'?

I wanted to keep things simple and have a unified message for both 
scenarios as what we care about from an i915 POV is that something went 
wrong on the mei side. I can split it up.

Daniele

>
> John.
>
>>             __gsc_init_error(huc);
>>       }
>