[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] drm/i915: Flush the ring stop bit after clearing RING_HEAD in reset
Chris Wilson
chris at chris-wilson.co.uk
Thu May 24 13:40:54 UTC 2018
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-24 14:34:41)
>
> On 19/05/2018 10:04, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-18 15:42:00)
> >>
> >> On 18/05/2018 15:13, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-18 13:36:52)
> >>>>
> >>>> On 18/05/2018 13:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-18 12:50:41)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 18/05/2018 12:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-18 12:05:17)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 18/05/2018 11:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Inside the live_hangcheck (reset) selftests, we occasionally see
> >>>>>>>>> failures like
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.094840] i915_gem_set_wedged rcs0
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.094843] i915_gem_set_wedged current seqno 19a98, last 19a9a, hangcheck 0 [5158 ms]
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.094846] i915_gem_set_wedged Reset count: 6239 (global 1)
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.094848] i915_gem_set_wedged Requests:
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.095052] i915_gem_set_wedged first 19a99 [e8c:5f] prio=1024 @ 5159ms: (null)
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.095056] i915_gem_set_wedged last 19a9a [e81:1a] prio=139 @ 5159ms: igt/rcs0[5977]/1
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.095059] i915_gem_set_wedged active 19a99 [e8c:5f] prio=1024 @ 5159ms: (null)
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.095062] i915_gem_set_wedged [head 0220, postfix 0280, tail 02a8, batch 0xffffffff_ffffffff]
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100050] i915_gem_set_wedged ring->start: 0x00283000
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100053] i915_gem_set_wedged ring->head: 0x000001f8
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100055] i915_gem_set_wedged ring->tail: 0x000002a8
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100057] i915_gem_set_wedged ring->emit: 0x000002a8
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100059] i915_gem_set_wedged ring->space: 0x00000f10
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100085] i915_gem_set_wedged RING_START: 0x00283000
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100088] i915_gem_set_wedged RING_HEAD: 0x00000260
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100091] i915_gem_set_wedged RING_TAIL: 0x000002a8
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100094] i915_gem_set_wedged RING_CTL: 0x00000001
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100097] i915_gem_set_wedged RING_MODE: 0x00000300 [idle]
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100100] i915_gem_set_wedged RING_IMR: fffffefe
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100104] i915_gem_set_wedged ACTHD: 0x00000000_0000609c
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100108] i915_gem_set_wedged BBADDR: 0x00000000_0000609d
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100111] i915_gem_set_wedged DMA_FADDR: 0x00000000_00283260
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100114] i915_gem_set_wedged IPEIR: 0x00000000
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100117] i915_gem_set_wedged IPEHR: 0x02800000
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100120] i915_gem_set_wedged Execlist status: 0x00044052 00000002
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100124] i915_gem_set_wedged Execlist CSB read 5 [5 cached], write 5 [5 from hws], interrupt posted? no, tasklet queued? no (enabled)
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100128] i915_gem_set_wedged ELSP[0] count=1, ring->start=00283000, rq: 19a99 [e8c:5f] prio=1024 @ 5164ms: (null)
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100132] i915_gem_set_wedged ELSP[1] count=1, ring->start=00257000, rq: 19a9a [e81:1a] prio=139 @ 5164ms: igt/rcs0[5977]/1
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100135] i915_gem_set_wedged HW active? 0x5
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100250] i915_gem_set_wedged E 19a99 [e8c:5f] prio=1024 @ 5164ms: (null)
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100338] i915_gem_set_wedged E 19a9a [e81:1a] prio=139 @ 5164ms: igt/rcs0[5977]/1
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100340] i915_gem_set_wedged Queue priority: 139
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100343] i915_gem_set_wedged Q 0 [e98:19] prio=132 @ 5164ms: igt/rcs0[5977]/8
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100346] i915_gem_set_wedged Q 0 [e84:19] prio=121 @ 5165ms: igt/rcs0[5977]/2
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100349] i915_gem_set_wedged Q 0 [e87:19] prio=82 @ 5165ms: igt/rcs0[5977]/3
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100352] i915_gem_set_wedged Q 0 [e84:1a] prio=44 @ 5164ms: igt/rcs0[5977]/2
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100356] i915_gem_set_wedged Q 0 [e8b:19] prio=20 @ 5165ms: igt/rcs0[5977]/4
> >>>>>>>>> <7>[ 239.100362] i915_gem_set_wedged drv_selftest [5894] waiting for 19a99
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> where the GPU saw an arbitration point and idles; AND HAS NOT BEEN RESET!
> >>>>>>>>> The RING_MODE indicates that is idle and has the STOP_RING bit set, so
> >>>>>>>>> try clearing it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> v2: Only clear the bit on restarting the ring, as we want to be sure the
> >>>>>>>>> STOP_RING bit is kept if reset fails on wedging.
> >>>>>>>>> v3: Spot when the ring state doesn't make sense when re-initialising the
> >>>>>>>>> engine and dump it to the logs so that we don't have to wait for an
> >>>>>>>>> error later and try to guess what happened earlier.
> >>>>>>>>> v4: Prepare to print all the unexpected state, not just the first.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >>>>>>>>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 3744f5750624..ba8411ba4abf 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -1781,6 +1781,9 @@ static void enable_execlists(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >>>>>>>>> I915_WRITE(RING_MODE_GEN7(engine),
> >>>>>>>>> _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(GFX_RUN_LIST_ENABLE));
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> + I915_WRITE(RING_MI_MODE(engine->mmio_base),
> >>>>>>>>> + _MASKED_BIT_DISABLE(STOP_RING));
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Worries me a bit to clear it unconditionally since documentation says
> >>>>>>>> nothing (that I can find) about this scenario.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> I915_WRITE(RING_HWS_PGA(engine->mmio_base),
> >>>>>>>>> engine->status_page.ggtt_offset);
> >>>>>>>>> POSTING_READ(RING_HWS_PGA(engine->mmio_base));
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -1789,6 +1792,19 @@ static void enable_execlists(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >>>>>>>>> engine->execlists.csb_head = -1;
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +static bool unexpected_starting_state(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >>>>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>>>> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = engine->i915;
> >>>>>>>>> + bool unexpected = false;
> >>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>> + if (I915_READ(RING_MI_MODE(engine->mmio_base)) & STOP_RING) {
> >>>>>>>>> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("STOP_RING still set in RING_MI_MODE\n");
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Also worries me to bury this as a debug message unless we can find in
> >>>>>>>> documentation that this is known to happen occasionally.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If we had the check and logging immediately after reset, with a more
> >>>>>>>> visible log, we could build a larger data set of reported failures and
> >>>>>>>> then go back to hw people and ask them about it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The problem with the reset side is trying to avoid mixing in the case
> >>>>>>> where we are faking it and expect it to still be set. On the ringbuffer
> >>>>>>> path, we handle STOP_RING as being part of the init sequence. The log
> >>>>>>> already says we did a reset and STOP_RING is set (since we have tracing
> >>>>>>> through the reset), I just need to find the right spot to handle it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The "distance" in code paths between reset and init_hw is probably the
> >>>>>> smallest of my concerns. If we could make this message not debug only,
> >>>>>> and clear STOP_RING only conditionally I think I would be happy with
> >>>>>> giving this a go and see if it collects any data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why? Who else but us are going to read it, and why bother if it is not
> >>>>> actionable. It is logged (was logged already, now highlighted) and for
> >>>>> the user none of it is relevant, the only thing that matters to them is
> >>>>> that they don't even notice the system suffered a GPU hang.
> >>>>
> >>>> My reasoning is this - something has happened which is completely
> >>>> unexpected and may have other negative effect which are currently
> >>>> unknown to us. By logging it at a higher level we collect this now very
> >>>> specific signature on a wider collection of platforms and can then act
> >>>> on the collected data set. Also very specific log message makes bug
> >>>> triage easier and a lower chance it gets bunched up with other hang reports.
> >>>
> >>> You do have a very specific debug message, but having a flip-flopping
> >>> test that has no impact on system stability (as evidenced by the lack of
> >>> errors, if there was a subsequent error it is imperative that the post
> >>> mortem capture does its best, everything else is lost) does not help us.
> >>
> >> What if we deploy this as DRM_NOTICE/INFO, get reports from the field
> >> and not just the selftest, and then realize the issue is actually
> >> interesting and could be fed back to HW design?
> >
> > But we already have enough to point out that the HW is not behaving as
> > we^W I would expect.
> >
> > For field analysis, I strongly believe that unless you can capture
> > everything you need without user intervention, you will never get the
> > debug information required. The instructions we have are "oops,
> > something went wrong, please file a new bug report here and attach this
> > file". That's already too complicated wants to be automated, e.g. abrtd.
> > But for whatever reason we don't get the reports from abrtd.
> >
> > Elsewhere we use the method of light periodic checks and if they spot an
> > issue, switch on heavy debug mode. For something like this where we want
> > a trace of operations as they happen? I think we need to be able to turn
> > on GEM tracing on the fly and be able to capture the compressed buffers.
>
> Not sure that we need a trace of pre-events for this. It seems pretty
> straight-forward to me. Register is not in the state in which it should
> be immediately after reset.
But you don't always have a reset, that makes throwing a tantrum here
difficult.
> It will help sort the hang reports into a new bucket.
The information is already in the hang report. What isn't which would be
useful is the trace of events that precede certain hangs (ones that I
suspect are driver bugs as opposed to userspace GPU programming issues).
-Chris
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list