[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915: Solve the GPU reset vs. modeset deadlocks with an rw_semaphore

Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
Fri Jun 30 18:46:36 UTC 2017


On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 08:23:58PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Ville Syrjälä
> <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> And if the GEM folks insist the old behavior can't be restored, then we
> >> just need a tailor-made get-out-of-jail card for gen4 gpu reset somewhere
> >> in i915_sw_fence. Force-completing all render requests atomic updates
> >> depend upon is imo the simplest solution to this, and we've had a driver
> >> that worked like that for years.
> >
> > And it used to break all the time. I think we've had to fix it at least
> > three times by now. So I tend to think it's better to fix it in a way
> > that won't break so easily.
> 
> Why exactly is making the atomic code massive more tricky the easy
> fix?

I don't see what this massive trickyness is. Compared to the rest of
atomic what I have is absolutely trivial. Just the
duplicate_committed_state() and the '.committed_state = foo'
assignments in hw_done(). That's it really.

> That's the part I don't get. Yes it got broken a bunch because no
> one runs CI and everyone forgets that gen3/4 reset the display in gpu
> reset, but in the end we do have a depency loop, and either the
> modeset side or the render side needs to bail out and cancel it's
> async stuff (whether that's a request or a nonblocking flip/atomic
> commit doesn't matter). In my opinion, cancelling the request (even if
> we're clever and only cancel the requests for the modeset waiters,
> which isn't to hard to pull off) seems about the simplest option.
> Especially since we need that code anyway, even TDR can't safe
> everything and resubmit under all circumstances (at least the buggy
> batch can't be resubmitted).
> 
> Cancelling any kind of atomic commit otoh looks like a lot more
> complexity.

I'm not cancelling anything.

> Why do you think this is the easier, or at least less
> fragile option? This patch series is full of FIXMEs, and even the more
> complete set seems to have a pile of holes. Plus we need to stop using
> obj->state, and I don't see any easy way to test for that (since the
> gen3/4 gpu reset case is the only corner cases that currently needs
> that).

We need to fix that stuff anyway if we ever want to queue up multiple
commits for the same crtc. The stuff I have that is specific to this
reset stuff is actually very simple. The rest is just fixing up the
huge mess we've already made.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list