[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_workarounds: Verify regs directly

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-05-29 11:15:46)
> Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > It seems like the HW validator is getting better at preventing our
> > snooping of system registers from non-privileged batches! If we can't
> > use SRM, let's probe the register directly through mmio, making sure we
> > have the context spinning on the GPU first.
> >
> > v2: Hold forcewake just in case the spinning batch isn't enough to
> > justify our register access.
> >
> 
> If I recall correctly, either of them separately didn't
> work. And there was delay after grabbing the fw before
> the register contents appeared. Don't remember the gen tho.

That would be a kernel bug / HW bug. Either we fail in our ack sequence
(maybe let the read overtake the fw ack or something equally impossible),
or the HW fails in its.

If you can think of a way of spotting it, add it to
selftests/intel_uncore -- it's exactly the type of test we need in bring
up, verifying our mmio is accurate.

> > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110544
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld at gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c | 88 +++++++-----------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c b/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c
> > index 44e3dce8a..2767b04d7 100644
> > --- a/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c
> > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c
> > @@ -80,70 +80,27 @@ static bool write_only(const uint32_t addr)
> >       return false;
> >  }
> >  
> > -#define MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM (0x24 << 23)
> > -
> > -static int workaround_fail_count(int fd, uint32_t ctx)
> > +static int workaround_fail_count(int i915, uint32_t ctx)
> >  {
> > -     struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2];
> > -     struct drm_i915_gem_relocation_entry *reloc;
> > -     struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf;
> > -     uint32_t result_sz, batch_sz;
> > -     uint32_t *base, *out;
> > -     int fail_count = 0;
> > -
> > -     reloc = calloc(num_wa_regs, sizeof(*reloc));
> > -     igt_assert(reloc);
> > -
> > -     result_sz = 4 * num_wa_regs;
> > -     result_sz = PAGE_ALIGN(result_sz);
> > -
> > -     batch_sz = 16 * num_wa_regs + 4;
> > -     batch_sz = PAGE_ALIGN(batch_sz);
> > -
> > -     memset(obj, 0, sizeof(obj));
> > -     obj[0].handle = gem_create(fd, result_sz);
> > -     gem_set_caching(fd, obj[0].handle, I915_CACHING_CACHED);
> > -     obj[1].handle = gem_create(fd, batch_sz);
> > -     obj[1].relocs_ptr = to_user_pointer(reloc);
> > -     obj[1].relocation_count = num_wa_regs;
> > -
> > -     out = base = gem_mmap__cpu(fd, obj[1].handle, 0, batch_sz, PROT_WRITE);
> > -     for (int i = 0; i < num_wa_regs; i++) {
> > -             *out++ = MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM | ((gen >= 8 ? 4 : 2) - 2);
> > -             *out++ = wa_regs[i].addr;
> > -             reloc[i].target_handle = obj[0].handle;
> > -             reloc[i].offset = (out - base) * sizeof(*out);
> > -             reloc[i].delta = i * sizeof(uint32_t);
> > -             reloc[i].read_domains = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_INSTRUCTION;
> > -             reloc[i].write_domain = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_INSTRUCTION;
> > -             *out++ = reloc[i].delta;
> > -             if (gen >= 8)
> > -                     *out++ = 0;
> > -     }
> > -     *out++ = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
> > -     munmap(base, batch_sz);
> > +     igt_spin_t *spin;
> > +     int fw, fail = 0;
> >  
> > -     memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf));
> > -     execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj);
> > -     execbuf.buffer_count = 2;
> > -     execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx;
> > -     gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
> > +     spin = igt_spin_new(i915, .ctx = ctx, .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN);
> > +     igt_spin_busywait_until_started(spin);
> >  
> > -     gem_set_domain(fd, obj[0].handle, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU, 0);
> > -
> > -     igt_debug("Address\tval\t\tmask\t\tread\t\tresult\n");
> > -
> > -     out = gem_mmap__cpu(fd, obj[0].handle, 0, result_sz, PROT_READ);
> > +     fw = igt_open_forcewake_handle(i915);
> 
> assert that it went fine?

Do we always expect the debugfs to be present? Do we strictly need it?
igt_debug if it isn't present and correlate that to a fail.
 
> Perhaps both will now do the trick. But if it fails
> get the forcewake before spinner so you get more delay.

Nah, I vote that in that case forcewake is broken and needs a kernel fix,
as we don't have any such delay when using I915_READ().
-Chris