[PATCH v4 00/11] Preemption support for A7XX
Rob Clark
robdclark at gmail.com
Tue Oct 22 15:05:07 UTC 2024
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:15 AM Akhil P Oommen <quic_akhilpo at quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:46 AM Neil Armstrong
> > <neil.armstrong at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 17/09/2024 13:14, Antonino Maniscalco wrote:
> > > > This series implements preemption for A7XX targets, which allows the GPU to
> > > > switch to an higher priority ring when work is pushed to it, reducing latency
> > > > for high priority submissions.
> > > >
> > > > This series enables L1 preemption with skip_save_restore which requires
> > > > the following userspace patches to function:
> > > >
> > > > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/30544
> > > >
> > > > A flag is added to `msm_submitqueue_create` to only allow submissions
> > > > from compatible userspace to be preempted, therefore maintaining
> > > > compatibility.
> > > >
> > > > Preemption is currently only enabled by default on A750, it can be
> > > > enabled on other targets through the `enable_preemption` module
> > > > parameter. This is because more testing is required on other targets.
> > > >
> > > > For testing on other HW it is sufficient to set that parameter to a
> > > > value of 1, then using the branch of mesa linked above, `TU_DEBUG=hiprio`
> > > > allows to run any application as high priority therefore preempting
> > > > submissions from other applications.
> > > >
> > > > The `msm_gpu_preemption_trigger` and `msm_gpu_preemption_irq` traces
> > > > added in this series can be used to observe preemption's behavior as
> > > > well as measuring preemption latency.
> > > >
> > > > Some commits from this series are based on a previous series to enable
> > > > preemption on A6XX targets:
> > > >
> > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/1520489185-21828-1-git-send-email-smasetty@codeaurora.org
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Antonino Maniscalco <antomani103 at gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > - Added missing register in pwrup list
> > > > - Removed and rearrange barriers
> > > > - Renamed `skip_inline_wptr` to `restore_wptr`
> > > > - Track ctx seqno per ring
> > > > - Removed secure preempt context
> > > > - NOP out postamble to disable it instantly
> > > > - Only emit pwrup reglist once
> > > > - Document bv_rptr_addr
> > > > - Removed unused A6XX_PREEMPT_USER_RECORD_SIZE
> > > > - Set name on preempt record buffer
> > > > - Link to v3: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240905-preemption-a750-t-v3-0-fd947699f7bc@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > - Added documentation about preemption
> > > > - Use quirks to determine which target supports preemption
> > > > - Add a module parameter to force disabling or enabling preemption
> > > > - Clear postamble when profiling
> > > > - Define A6XX_CP_CONTEXT_SWITCH_CNTL_LEVEL fields in a6xx.xml
> > > > - Make preemption records MAP_PRIV
> > > > - Removed user ctx record (NON_PRIV) and patch 2/9 as it's not needed
> > > > anymore
> > > > - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240830-preemption-a750-t-v2-0-86aeead2cd80@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Added preept_record_size for X185 in PATCH 3/7
> > > > - Added patches to reset perf counters
> > > > - Dropped unused defines
> > > > - Dropped unused variable (fixes warning)
> > > > - Only enable preemption on a750
> > > > - Reject MSM_SUBMITQUEUE_ALLOW_PREEMPT for unsupported targets
> > > > - Added Akhil's Reviewed-By tags to patches 1/9,2/9,3/9
> > > > - Added Neil's Tested-By tags
> > > > - Added explanation for UAPI changes in commit message
> > > > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240815-preemption-a750-t-v1-0-7bda26c34037@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Antonino Maniscalco (11):
> > > > drm/msm: Fix bv_fence being used as bv_rptr
> > > > drm/msm/A6XX: Track current_ctx_seqno per ring
> > > > drm/msm: Add a `preempt_record_size` field
> > > > drm/msm: Add CONTEXT_SWITCH_CNTL bitfields
> > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Implement preemption for A7XX targets
> > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Sync relevant adreno_pm4.xml changes
> > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Use posamble to reset counters on preemption
> > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Add traces for preemption
> > > > drm/msm/A6XX: Add a flag to allow preemption to submitqueue_create
> > > > drm/msm/A6xx: Enable preemption for A750
> > > > Documentation: document adreno preemption
> > > >
> > > > Documentation/gpu/msm-preemption.rst | 98 +++++
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a2xx_gpu.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a3xx_gpu.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a4xx_gpu.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.c | 6 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_catalog.c | 7 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.c | 325 ++++++++++++++-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_gpu.h | 174 ++++++++
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a6xx_preempt.c | 440 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/adreno_gpu.h | 9 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_drv.c | 4 +
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h | 11 -
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu_trace.h | 28 ++
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_ringbuffer.h | 18 +
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_submitqueue.c | 3 +
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/registers/adreno/a6xx.xml | 7 +-
> > > > .../gpu/drm/msm/registers/adreno/adreno_pm4.xml | 39 +-
> > > > include/uapi/drm/msm_drm.h | 5 +-
> > > > 20 files changed, 1117 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-)
> > > > ---
> > > > base-commit: 7c626ce4bae1ac14f60076d00eafe71af30450ba
> > > > change-id: 20240815-preemption-a750-t-fcee9a844b39
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > I've been running vulkan-cts (1.3.7.3-0-gd71a36db16d98313c431829432a136dbda692a08 from Yocto)
> > > on SM8650-QRD, SM8550-QRD & SM8450-HDK boards with enable_preemption in default value
> > > and forced to 1, and I've seen no regression so far
> > >
> > > On SM8550, I've seen a few:
> > > platform 3d6a000.gmu: [drm:a6xx_hfi_send_msg.constprop.0 [msm]] *ERROR* Message HFI_H2F_MSG_GX_BW_PERF_VOTE id 2743 timed out waiting for response
> > > platform 3d6a000.gmu: [drm:a6xx_hfi_send_msg.constprop.0 [msm]] *ERROR* Unexpected message id 2743 on the response queue
> > > but it's unrelated to preempt
> > >
> > > and on SM8450:
> > > platform 3d6a000.gmu: [drm:a6xx_gmu_set_oob [msm]] *ERROR* Timeout waiting for GMU OOB set GPU_SET: 0x0
> > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:hangcheck_handler [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: hangcheck detected gpu lockup rb 0!
> > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:hangcheck_handler [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: completed fence: 331235
> > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:hangcheck_handler [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: submitted fence: 331236
> > > adreno 3d00000.gpu: [drm:a6xx_irq [msm]] *ERROR* gpu fault ring 0 fence 50de4 status 00800005 rb 0000/0699 ib1 0000000000000000/0000 ib2 0000000000000000/0000
> > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:recover_worker [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: hangcheck recover!
> > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:recover_worker [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: offending task: deqp-vk (/usr/lib/vulkan-cts/deqp-vk)
> > > msm_dpu ae01000.display-controller: [drm:recover_worker [msm]] *ERROR* 7.3.0.1: hangcheck recover!
> > > leading to a VK_ERROR_DEVICE_LOST, but again unrelated to preempt support.
> >
> > I suspect on newer devices we have trouble resetting the GMU, leading
> > to (what I assume is happening here) the CPU thinking the GMU is in a
> > different state than it is.
> >
> > Which has led to some stability issues on a660 in mesa CI, if anything
> > crashes the gpu in the CI run it tends to kill the rest of the run
> > until the board is power cycled.
> >
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/37
> >
> > I think we have some work to do on making recovery more robust on
> > things newer than early a6xx things.
>
> Is this seen only with a particular scenario or is recovery always
> broken? I fixed recovery on 7c3 (a660 based) a couple of year ago,
> not sure what exactly regressed. At least I didn't see any issue on
> x185.
More recently my x1e (x1-85) and sc8280xp (a690) have been pretty
reliable about recovery. And mesa CI seems to have gotten more
reliable at recovery when they uprev'd from v6.6x to v6.11.x, so I
guess something in that range improved things? But maybe not 100%,
kernel-ci (msm/msm_recovery at gpu-fault) can sometimes reproduce this,
apparently:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/issues/65
This test does 16 submits, with the 10th one having an invalid opc,
and then checks that all the ones before and after successfully
execute a CP_MEM_WRITE:
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools/-/blob/master/tests/msm/msm_recovery.c?ref_type=heads#L145
BR,
-R
> -Akhil.
>
> >
> > BR,
> > -R
> >
> > > So you can also add:
> > > Tested-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong at linaro.org> # on SM8550-QRD
> > > Tested-by: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong at linaro.org> # on SM8450-HDK
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Neil
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list