[PATCH v5 4/4] drm/i915: add guard page to ggtt->error_capture

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 09/03/2023 09:59, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09.03.2023 10:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 09/03/2023 09:34, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09.03.2023 10:08, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/03/2023 15:39, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>>>> Write-combining memory allows speculative reads by CPU.
>>>>> ggtt->error_capture is WC mapped to CPU, so CPU/MMU can try
>>>>> to prefetch memory beyond the error_capture, ie it tries
>>>>> to read memory pointed by next PTE in GGTT.
>>>>> If this PTE points to invalid address DMAR errors will occur.
>>>>> This behaviour was observed on ADL and RPL platforms.
>>>>> To avoid it, guard scratch page should be added after error_capture.
>>>>> The patch fixes the most annoying issue with error capture but
>>>>> since WC reads are used also in other places there is a risk similar
>>>>> problem can affect them as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> v2:
>>>>>    - modified commit message (I hope the diagnosis is correct),
>>>>>    - added bug checks to ensure scratch is initialized on gen3 
>>>>> platforms.
>>>>>      CI produces strange stacktrace for it suggesting scratch[0] is 
>>>>> NULL,
>>>>>      to be removed after resolving the issue with gen3 platforms.
>>>>> v3:
>>>>>    - removed bug checks, replaced with gen check.
>>>>> v4:
>>>>>    - change code for scratch page insertion to support all platforms,
>>>>>    - add info in commit message there could be more similar issues
>>>>> v5:
>>>>>    - check for nop_clear_range instead of gen8 (Tvrtko),
>>>>>    - re-insert scratch pages on resume (Tvrtko)
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda at intel.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at linux.intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c | 35 
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>>>   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c 
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
>>>>> index b925da42c7cfc4..8fb700fde85c8f 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
>>>>> @@ -502,6 +502,21 @@ static void cleanup_init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt 
>>>>> *ggtt)
>>>>>       mutex_destroy(&ggtt->error_mutex);
>>>>>   }
>>>>>   +static void
>>>>> +ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt, u64 offset, u64 
>>>>> length)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    struct i915_address_space *vm = &ggtt->vm;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (vm->clear_range != nop_clear_range)
>>>>
>>>> Hm I thought usually we would add a prefix for exported stuff, like 
>>>> in this case i915_vm_nop_clear_range, however I see intel_gtt.h 
>>>> exports a bunch of stuff with no prefixes already so I guess you 
>>>> could continue like that by inertia. The conundrum also could have 
>>>> been avoided if you left it static (leaving out dpt and mock_gtt 
>>>> patches) but no strong opinion from me.
>>>>
>>>>> +        return vm->clear_range(vm, offset, length);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    while (length > 0) {
>>>>> +        vm->insert_page(vm, px_dma(vm->scratch[0]), offset, 
>>>>> I915_CACHE_NONE, 0);
>>>>> +        offset += I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>> +        length -= I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>   static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
>>>>>   {
>>>>>       /*
>>>>> @@ -550,8 +565,12 @@ static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
>>>>>            * paths, and we trust that 0 will remain reserved. However,
>>>>>            * the only likely reason for failure to insert is a driver
>>>>>            * bug, which we expect to cause other failures...
>>>>> +         *
>>>>> +         * Since CPU can perform speculative reads on error capture
>>>>> +         * (write-combining allows it) add scratch page after error
>>>>> +         * capture to avoid DMAR errors.
>>>>>            */
>>>>> -        ggtt->error_capture.size = I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>> +        ggtt->error_capture.size = 2 * I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>>           ggtt->error_capture.color = I915_COLOR_UNEVICTABLE;
>>>>>           if (drm_mm_reserve_node(&ggtt->vm.mm, &ggtt->error_capture))
>>>>> drm_mm_insert_node_in_range(&ggtt->vm.mm,
>>>>> @@ -561,11 +580,15 @@ static int init_ggtt(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
>>>>>                               0, ggtt->mappable_end,
>>>>>                               DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW);
>>>>>       }
>>>>> -    if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture))
>>>>> +    if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture)) {
>>>>> +        u64 start = ggtt->error_capture.start;
>>>>> +        u64 size = ggtt->error_capture.size;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(ggtt, start, size);
>>>>>           drm_dbg(&ggtt->vm.i915->drm,
>>>>>               "Reserved GGTT:[%llx, %llx] for use by error capture\n",
>>>>> -            ggtt->error_capture.start,
>>>>> -            ggtt->error_capture.start + ggtt->error_capture.size);
>>>>> +            start, start + size);
>>>>> +    }
>>>>>         /*
>>>>>        * The upper portion of the GuC address space has a sizeable 
>>>>> hole
>>>>> @@ -1256,6 +1279,10 @@ void i915_ggtt_resume(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
>>>>>         flush = i915_ggtt_resume_vm(&ggtt->vm);
>>>>>   +    if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture))
>>>>> +        ggtt_insert_scratch_pages(ggtt, ggtt->error_capture.start,
>>>>> +                      ggtt->error_capture.size);
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it belongs in i915_ggtt_resume_vm since that one deals with 
>>>> PTEs? Looks like it to me, but ack either way.
>>>
>>> i915_ggtt_resume_vm is called for ggtt and dpt. Of course I could add 
>>> conditionals there checking if it is ggtt, but in such situation 
>>> i915_ggtt_resume seems more natural candidate.
>>
>> "if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture))" check would handle 
>> that automatically, no? i915_ggtt_resume has nothing about PTEs at the 
>> moment..
> 
> Yes but since i915_ggtt_resume_vm  has vm as an argument (ie it operates 
> on generic vm), there will be needed downcasting somewhere:
> if (vm->is_ggtt) {
>      struct i915_ggtt *ggtt = i915_vm_to_ggtt(vm);
>      if (drm_mm_node_allocated(&ggtt->error_capture))
>          ...
> }
> 
> In i915_ggtt_resume we have it for free, but moreover 
> i915_ggtt_resume_vm (despite its name) seems to handle common stuff of 
> ggtt and dpt, and i915_ggtt_resume looks as specific for ggtt, similarly 
> intel_dpt_resume is specific for dpt.
> If it does not convince you, I will update patch with above code.

Right, I see your point - I was mislead by the name i915_ggtt_resume_vm 
thinking it signifies it working on i915_ggtt. It's all good then.

Regards,

Tvrtko