[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/guc: Disable PL1 power limit when loading GuC firmware

Mon Apr 10 22:17:33 UTC 2023

On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 04:08:31 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>

Hi Rodrigo,

> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 09:45:21PM -0700, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
> > On dGfx, the PL1 power limit being enabled and set to a low value results
> > in a low GPU operating freq. It also negates the freq raise operation which
> > is done before GuC firmware load. As a result GuC firmware load can time
> > out. Such timeouts were seen in the GL #8062 bug below (where the PL1 power
> > limit was enabled and set to a low value). Therefore disable the PL1 power
> > limit when allowed by HW when loading GuC firmware.
> >
> > v2:
> >  - Take mutex (to disallow writes to power1_max) across GuC reset/fw load
> >  - Add hwm_power_max_restore to error return code path
> >
> > v3 (Jani N):
> >  - Add/remove explanatory comments
> >  - Function renames
> >  - Type corrections
> >  - Locking annotation
> >
> > v4:
> >  - Don't hold the lock across GuC reset (Rodrigo)
> >  - New locking scheme (suggested by Rodrigo)
> >  - Eliminate rpm_get in power_max_disable/restore, not needed (Tvrtko)
> >
> > Link: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8062
> > Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c |  9 ++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c     | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.h     |  7 +++++
> >  3 files changed, 56 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> > index 4ccb4be4c9cba..aa8e35a5636a0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
> > @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> >  #include "intel_uc.h"
> >
> >  #include "i915_drv.h"
> > +#include "i915_hwmon.h"
> >
> >  static const struct intel_uc_ops uc_ops_off;
> >  static const struct intel_uc_ops uc_ops_on;
> > @@ -461,6 +462,7 @@ static int __uc_init_hw(struct intel_uc *uc)
> >	struct intel_guc *guc = &uc->guc;
> >	struct intel_huc *huc = &uc->huc;
> >	int ret, attempts;
> > +	bool pl1en;
>
> we need to initialize this to make warn free builds happy...
> what's our default btw? false? true? we need to read it back?

Yes this was a real bug caught by the kernel build robot. We don't know the
default till we read it back, which would mean exposing a new function. I
have avoided exposing the new function, i.e. I have fixed this by creating a
new (err_rps) label which will make sure that the variable is not used
unless it is initialized. I am not expecting to see warnings from the build
robot with this fix now.

> >
> >	GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_uc_supports_guc(uc));
> >	GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_uc_wants_guc(uc));
> > @@ -491,6 +493,9 @@ static int __uc_init_hw(struct intel_uc *uc)
> >	else
> >		attempts = 1;
> >
> > +	/* Disable a potentially low PL1 power limit to allow freq to be raised */
> > +	i915_hwmon_power_max_disable(gt->i915, &pl1en);
> > +
> >	intel_rps_raise_unslice(&uc_to_gt(uc)->rps);
> >
> >	while (attempts--) {
> > @@ -547,6 +552,8 @@ static int __uc_init_hw(struct intel_uc *uc)
> >		intel_rps_lower_unslice(&uc_to_gt(uc)->rps);
> >	}
> >
> > +	i915_hwmon_power_max_restore(gt->i915, pl1en);
> > +
> >	guc_info(guc, "submission %s\n", str_enabled_disabled(intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(uc)));
> >	guc_info(guc, "SLPC %s\n", str_enabled_disabled(intel_uc_uses_guc_slpc(uc)));
> >
> > @@ -563,6 +570,8 @@ static int __uc_init_hw(struct intel_uc *uc)
> >	/* Return GT back to RPn */
> >	intel_rps_lower_unslice(&uc_to_gt(uc)->rps);
> >
> > +	i915_hwmon_power_max_restore(gt->i915, pl1en);
> > +
> >	__uc_sanitize(uc);
> >
> >	if (!ret) {
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > index 7f44e809ca155..9ab8971679fe3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ struct hwm_drvdata {
> >	struct hwm_energy_info ei;		/*  Energy info for energy1_input */
> >	char name[12];
> >	int gt_n;
> > +	bool reset_in_progress;
> >  };
> >
> >  struct i915_hwmon {
> > @@ -400,6 +401,10 @@ hwm_power_max_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, long val)
> >	u32 nval;
> >
> >	mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > +	if (hwmon->ddat.reset_in_progress) {
> > +		ret = -EAGAIN;
> > +		goto unlock;
> > +	}
> >	wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(ddat->uncore->rpm);
> >
> >	/* Disable PL1 limit and verify, because the limit cannot be disabled on all platforms */
> > @@ -421,6 +426,7 @@ hwm_power_max_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, long val)
> >			 PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN | PKG_PWR_LIM_1, nval);
> >  exit:
> >	intel_runtime_pm_put(ddat->uncore->rpm, wakeref);
> > +unlock:
> >	mutex_unlock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> >	return ret;
> >  }
> > @@ -472,6 +478,40 @@ hwm_power_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr, int chan, long val)
> >	}
> >  }
> >
> > +void i915_hwmon_power_max_disable(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool *old)
> > +{
> > +	struct i915_hwmon *hwmon = i915->hwmon;
> > +	u32 r;
> > +
> > +	if (!hwmon || !i915_mmio_reg_valid(hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > +
> > +	hwmon->ddat.reset_in_progress = true;
> > +	r = intel_uncore_rmw(hwmon->ddat.uncore, hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
> > +			     PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN, 0);
> > +	*old = !!(r & PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN);
> > +
> > +	mutex_unlock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void i915_hwmon_power_max_restore(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool old)
> > +{
> > +	struct i915_hwmon *hwmon = i915->hwmon;
> > +
> > +	if (!hwmon || !i915_mmio_reg_valid(hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > +
> > +	intel_uncore_rmw(hwmon->ddat.uncore, hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
> > +			 PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN, old ? PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN : 0);
> > +	hwmon->ddat.reset_in_progress = false;
> > +
> > +	mutex_unlock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > +}
>
> you could have combined both functions in a
> i915_hwmon_power_max_set(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool val, bool *old)
>
> then pass NULL to old on the restoration times
> and have
>     if (old)
>		*old = !!(r & PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN);
>
> But really up to you here, the current code is clear to follow imho
> so, with the pl1en initialization fixed:

Yes, left this as is.

>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>

Have retained the R-b since the fix in __uc_init_hw is minor.

Thanks!
Ashutosh

> > +
> >  static umode_t
> >  hwm_energy_is_visible(const struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, u32 attr)
> >  {
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.h
> > index 7ca9cf2c34c96..0fcb7de844061 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.h
> > @@ -7,14 +7,21 @@
> >  #ifndef __I915_HWMON_H__
> >  #define __I915_HWMON_H__
> >
> > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > +
> >  struct drm_i915_private;
> > +struct intel_gt;
> >
> >  #if IS_REACHABLE(CONFIG_HWMON)
> >  void i915_hwmon_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915);
> >  void i915_hwmon_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *i915);
> > +void i915_hwmon_power_max_disable(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool *old);
> > +void i915_hwmon_power_max_restore(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool old);
> >  #else
> >  static inline void i915_hwmon_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) { };
> >  static inline void i915_hwmon_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *i915) { };
> > +static inline void i915_hwmon_power_max_disable(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool *old) { };
> > +static inline void i915_hwmon_power_max_restore(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool old) { };
> >  #endif
> >
> >  #endif /* __I915_HWMON_H__ */
> > --
> > 2.38.0
> >