[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Make sure engines are idle during GPU idling in LR mode

[Imre Deak]

On Thu, 2016-11-03 at 18:59 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 06:19:37PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > We assume that the GPU is idle once receiving the seqno via the last
> > request's user interrupt. In execlist mode the corresponding context
> > completed interrupt can be delayed though and until this latter
> > interrupt arrives we consider the request to be pending on the ELSP
> > submit port. This can cause a problem during system suspend where this
> > last request will be seen by the resume code as still pending. Such
> > pending requests are normally replayed after a GPU reset, but during
> > resume we reset both SW and HW tracking of the ring head/tail pointers,
> > so replaying the pending request with its stale tale pointer will leave
> > the ring in an inconsistent state. A subsequent request submission can
> > lead then to the GPU executing from uninitialized area in the ring
> > behind the above stale tail pointer.
> > 
> > Fix this by making sure any pending request on the ELSP port is
> > completed before suspending. I used a polling wait since the completion
> > time I measured was <1ms and since normally we only need to wait during
> > system suspend. GPU idling during runtime suspend is scheduled with a
> > delay (currently 50-100ms) after the retirement of the last request at
> > which point the context completed interrupt must have arrived already.
> > 
> > The chance of this bug was increased by
> > 
> > commit 1c777c5d1dcdf8fa0223fcff35fb387b5bb9517a
> > Author: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
> > Date:   Wed Oct 12 17:46:37 2016 +0300
> > 
> >     drm/i915/hsw: Fix GPU hang during resume from S3-devices state
> > 
> > but it could happen even without the explicit GPU reset, since we
> > disable interrupts afterwards during the suspend sequence.
> > 
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at intel.com>
> > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98470
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c  |  3 +++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.h |  1 +
> >  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index 1f995ce..5ff02b5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -2766,6 +2766,9 @@ i915_gem_idle_work_handler(struct work_struct *work)
> >  	if (dev_priv->gt.active_requests)
> >  		goto out_unlock;
> >  
> > +	if (i915.enable_execlists)
> > +		intel_lr_wait_engines_idle(dev_priv);
> 
> Idle work handler... So runtime suspend.
> Anyway this is not an ideal place for a stall under struct_mutex (even if
> 16x10us, it's the principle!).

During runtime suspend this won't add any overhead since the context
done interrupt happened already (unless there is a bug somewhere else).

> Move this to before the first READ_ONCE(dev_priv->gt.active_requests);
> so we stall before taking the lock, and skip if any new requests arrive
> whilst waiting.
> 
> (Also i915.enable_execlists is forbidden. But meh)
> 
> static struct drm_i915_gem_request *
> execlists_active_port(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> {
> 	struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
> 
> 	request = READ_ONCE(engine->execlist_port[1]);
> 	if (request)
> 		return request;
> 
> 	return READ_ONCE(engine->execlist_port[0]);
> }
> 
> /* Wait for execlists to settle, but bail if any new requests come in */
> for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id) {
> 	struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
> 
> 	request = execlists_active_port(engine);
> 	if (!request)
> 		continue;
> 
> 	if (wait_for(execlists_active_port(engine) != request, 10))
> 		DRM_ERROR("Timeout waiting for %s to idle\n", engine->name);
> }

Hm, but we still need to re-check and bail out if not idle with
struct_mutex held, since gt.active_requests could go 0->1->0 before
taking struct_mutex? I can rewrite things with that check added, using
the above.

--Imre