[Intel-gfx] drm/i915: Watchdog timeout: IRQ handler for gen8+

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-01-07 11:58:13)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This series has not been recognized by Patchwork as such, nor are the 
> patches numbered. Have you used git format-patch -<N> --cover-letter and 
> git send-email to send it out?
> 
> Rest inline.
> 
> On 05/01/2019 02:39, Carlos Santa wrote:
> > +static void gen8_watchdog_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> > +{
> > +     struct intel_engine_cs *engine = (struct intel_engine_cs *)data;
> > +     struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = engine->i915;
> > +     enum forcewake_domains fw_domains;
> > +     u32 current_seqno;
> > +
> > +     switch (engine->id) {
> > +     default:
> > +             MISSING_CASE(engine->id);
> > +             /* fall through */
> > +     case RCS:
> > +             fw_domains = FORCEWAKE_RENDER;
> > +             break;
> > +     case VCS:
> > +     case VCS2:
> > +     case VECS:
> > +             fw_domains = FORCEWAKE_MEDIA;
> > +             break;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     intel_uncore_forcewake_get(dev_priv, fw_domains);
> 
> I'd be tempted to drop this and just use I915_WRITE. It doesn't feel 
> like there is any performance to be gained with it and it embeds too 
> much knowledge here.

No, no, no. Let's not reintroduce a fw inside irq context on a frequent
timer again.

Rule of thumb for fw_get:
gen6+: 10us to 50ms.
gen8+: 10us to 500us.

And then we don't release fw for 1ms after the fw_put. So we basically
prevent GT powersaving while the watchdog is active. That strikes me as
hopefully an unintended consequence.

The fw_get will be required if we actually hang, but for the timer
check, we should be able to do without.

And while on the topic of the timer irq, it should be forcibly cleared
along intel_engine_park, so that we ensure it is not raised while the
device/driver is supposed to be asleep. Or something to that effect.

> > +     current_seqno = intel_engine_get_seqno(engine);
> > +
> > +     /* did the request complete after the timer expired? */
> > +     if (intel_engine_last_submit(engine) == current_seqno)
> > +             goto fw_put;
> > +
> > +     if (engine->hangcheck.watchdog == current_seqno) {
> > +             /* Make sure the active request will be marked as guilty */
> > +             engine->hangcheck.stalled = true;
> > +             engine->hangcheck.acthd = intel_engine_get_active_head(engine);
> > +             engine->hangcheck.seqno = current_seqno;
> > +
> > +             /* And try to run the hangcheck_work as soon as possible */
> > +             set_bit(I915_RESET_WATCHDOG, &dev_priv->gpu_error.flags);
> > +             queue_delayed_work(system_long_wq,
> > +                                &dev_priv->gpu_error.hangcheck_work,
> > +                                round_jiffies_up_relative(HZ));
> > +     } else {
> > +             engine->hangcheck.watchdog = current_seqno;
> 
> The logic above potentially handles my previous question? Could be if 
> batch 2 hangs. But..

Also, DO NOT USE HANGCHECK for this. The whole design was to be able to
do the engine reset right away. (Now guc can't but that's known broken.)

Aside, we have to rewrite this entire logic anyway as the engine seqno
and global_seqno are obsolete.
-Chris