[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gen9: Increase PCODE request timeout to 100ms

[Imre Deak]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 04:05:33PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:29:44PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> > After
> > commit 2c7d0602c815277f7cb7c932b091288710d8aba7
> > Author: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
> > Date:   Mon Dec 5 18:27:37 2016 +0200
> > 
> >     drm/i915/gen9: Fix PCODE polling during CDCLK change notification
> > 
> > there is still one report of the CDCLK-change request timing out on a
> > KBL machine, see the Reference link. On that machine the maximum time
> > the request took to succeed was 34ms, so increase the timeout to 100ms.
> > 
> > Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99345
> > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h |  2 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c  | 11 ++++++-----
> >  2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > index 821c57c..7970ba8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@
> >  	int cpu, ret, timeout = (US) * 1000; \
> >  	u64 base; \
> >  	_WAIT_FOR_ATOMIC_CHECK(ATOMIC); \
> > -	BUILD_BUG_ON((US) > 50000); \
> > +	BUILD_BUG_ON((US) > 100000); \
> >  	if (!(ATOMIC)) { \
> >  		preempt_disable(); \
> >  		cpu = smp_processor_id(); \
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index fe243c6..90134b0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -7910,10 +7910,10 @@ static bool skl_pcode_try_request(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox,
> >   * @timeout_base_ms: timeout for polling with preemption enabled
> >   *
> >   * Keep resending the @request to @mbox until PCODE acknowledges it, PCODE
> > - * reports an error or an overall timeout of @timeout_base_ms+10 ms expires.
> > + * reports an error or an overall timeout of @timeout_base_ms+100 ms expires.
> >   * The request is acknowledged once the PCODE reply dword equals @reply after
> >   * applying @reply_mask. Polling is first attempted with preemption enabled
> > - * for @timeout_base_ms and if this times out for another 10 ms with
> > + * for @timeout_base_ms and if this times out for another 100 ms with
> >   * preemption disabled.
> >   *
> >   * Returns 0 on success, %-ETIMEDOUT in case of a timeout, <0 in case of some
> > @@ -7949,14 +7949,15 @@ int skl_pcode_request(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox, u32 request,
> >  	 * worst case) _and_ PCODE was busy for some reason even after a
> >  	 * (queued) request and @timeout_base_ms delay. As a workaround retry
> >  	 * the poll with preemption disabled to maximize the number of
> > -	 * requests. Increase the timeout from @timeout_base_ms to 10ms to
> > +	 * requests. Increase the timeout from @timeout_base_ms to 100ms to
> >  	 * account for interrupts that could reduce the number of these
> > -	 * requests.
> > +	 * requests, and for any quirks of the PCODE firmware that delays
> > +	 * the request completion.
> >  	 */
> >  	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PCODE timeout, retrying with preemption disabled\n");
> >  	WARN_ON_ONCE(timeout_base_ms > 3);
> >  	preempt_disable();
> > -	ret = wait_for_atomic(COND, 10);
> > +	ret = wait_for_atomic(COND, 100);
> >  	preempt_enable();
> 
> Ugh. Straw + camel.  How about something like:
> 
> __try_request_atomic:
> 	cond_resched();
> 
> 	preempt_disable()
> 	ret = COND ? wait_for_atomic(COND, 10) : 0;
> 	preempt_enable();
> 	return ret;
> 
> try_request:
> 	ret = wait_for(__try_request_atomic() == 0, 100);
> 
> So that our preempt-off period doesn't grow completely unchecked, or do
> we need that 34ms loop?

Yes, that's at least how I understand it. Scheduling away is what let's
PCODE start servicing some other request than ours or go idle. That's
in a way what we see when the preempt-enabled poll times out.

--Imre