[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/guc: Fix several issues related to resets / request cancelation

[Matthew Brost]

On Mon, Aug 09, 2021 at 03:35:26PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2021 at 11:07:55AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Resets are notoriously hard to get fully working and notoriously racey,
> > especially with selftests / IGTs that do all sorts of wild things that
> > would be near impossible to hit during normal use cases. Even though
> > likely impossible to hit, anything selftests / IGTs uncover needs to be
> > fixed. This patch addresses 7 such issues.
> > 
> > 1. A small race that could result in incorrect accounting of the number
> > of outstanding G2H. Basically prior to this patch we did not increment
> > the number of outstanding G2H if we encoutered a GT reset while sending
> > a H2G. This was incorrect as the context state had already been updated
> > to anticipate a G2H response thus the counter should be incremented.
> > 
> > 2. When unwinding requests on a reset context, if other requests in the
> > context are in the priority list the requests could be resubmitted out
> > of seqno order. Traverse the list of active requests in reserve and
> > append to the head of the priority list to fix this.
> > 
> > 3. Don't drop ce->guc_active.lock when unwinding a context after reset.
> > At one point we had to drop this because of a lock inversion but that is
> > no longer the case. It is much safer to hold the lock so let's do that.
> > 
> > 4. Prior to this patch the blocked context counter was cleared on
> > init_sched_state (used during registering a context & resets) which is
> > incorrect. This state needs to be persistent or the counter can read the
> > incorrect value.
> > 
> > 5. Flush the work queue for GuC generated G2H messages during a GT reset.
> > 
> > 6. Do not clear enable during a context reset if a schedule enable is in
> > flight.
> > 
> > 7. When unblocking a context, do not enable scheduling if the context is
> > banned.
> 
> I think each of the above should be a separate patch. I think it would
> also be good if each fix references the commits that introduced/changed
> something.
>

Sure, just was trying to cheat and make our lives easier with less
patches to backport into DII.
 
> Most of this stuff is extremely hard to get right, and unfortunately our
> current code is way too fond of lockless trickery (which really isn't a
> great idea in the reset code). We need to apply as much care as possible
> here.
>

Yep, resets are hard. It is hard because like ten other async things
(e.g. a new submission, registering a context, banning a context,
canceling a request, processing a G2H, trying to idle the GPU, unpinning
a context) can all be happening at the same time. Hopefully when we move
the DRM scheduler we can remove some of these async operations,
perma-pinned contexts would also help too. Have a story for that + a
story to simplify the locking.

> Also expect me to ask a lot of annoying questions about all the atomic_t
> you touch :-)

Looking forward to it.

Matt

> -Daniel
> 
> 
> > 
> > Fixes: f4eb1f3fe946 ("drm/i915/guc: Ensure G2H response has space in buffer")
> > Fixes: 62eaf0ae217d ("drm/i915/guc: Support request cancellation")
> > Fixes: eb5e7da736f3 ("drm/i915/guc: Reset implementation for new GuC interface")
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 43 ++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > index 87d8dc8f51b9..cd8df078ca87 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ static inline void init_sched_state(struct intel_context *ce)
> >  {
> >  	/* Only should be called from guc_lrc_desc_pin() */
> >  	atomic_set(&ce->guc_sched_state_no_lock, 0);
> > -	ce->guc_state.sched_state = 0;
> > +	ce->guc_state.sched_state &= SCHED_STATE_BLOCKED_MASK;
> >  }
> >  
> >  static inline bool
> > @@ -360,11 +360,13 @@ static int guc_submission_send_busy_loop(struct intel_guc *guc,
> >  {
> >  	int err;
> >  
> > -	err = intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, len, g2h_len_dw, loop);
> > -
> > -	if (!err && g2h_len_dw)
> > +	if (g2h_len_dw)
> >  		atomic_inc(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h);
> >  
> > +	err = intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, len, g2h_len_dw, loop);
> > +	if (err == -EBUSY && g2h_len_dw)
> > +		atomic_dec(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h);
> > +
> >  	return err;
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -725,6 +727,11 @@ void intel_guc_submission_reset_prepare(struct intel_guc *guc)
> >  			wait_for_reset(guc, &guc->outstanding_submission_g2h);
> >  		} while (!list_empty(&guc->ct.requests.incoming));
> >  	}
> > +
> > +	/* Flush any GuC generated G2H */
> > +	while (!list_empty(&guc->ct.requests.incoming))
> > +		msleep(1);
> > +
> >  	scrub_guc_desc_for_outstanding_g2h(guc);
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -797,14 +804,13 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_context *ce)
> >  
> >  	spin_lock_irqsave(&sched_engine->lock, flags);
> >  	spin_lock(&ce->guc_active.lock);
> > -	list_for_each_entry_safe(rq, rn,
> > -				 &ce->guc_active.requests,
> > -				 sched.link) {
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(rq, rn,
> > +					 &ce->guc_active.requests,
> > +					 sched.link) {
> >  		if (i915_request_completed(rq))
> >  			continue;
> >  
> >  		list_del_init(&rq->sched.link);
> > -		spin_unlock(&ce->guc_active.lock);
> >  
> >  		__i915_request_unsubmit(rq);
> >  
> > @@ -816,10 +822,8 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_context *ce)
> >  		}
> >  		GEM_BUG_ON(i915_sched_engine_is_empty(sched_engine));
> >  
> > -		list_add_tail(&rq->sched.link, pl);
> > +		list_add(&rq->sched.link, pl);
> >  		set_bit(I915_FENCE_FLAG_PQUEUE, &rq->fence.flags);
> > -
> > -		spin_lock(&ce->guc_active.lock);
> >  	}
> >  	spin_unlock(&ce->guc_active.lock);
> >  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sched_engine->lock, flags);
> > @@ -828,17 +832,23 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_context *ce)
> >  static void __guc_reset_context(struct intel_context *ce, bool stalled)
> >  {
> >  	struct i915_request *rq;
> > +	unsigned long flags;
> >  	u32 head;
> >  
> >  	intel_context_get(ce);
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * GuC will implicitly mark the context as non-schedulable
> > -	 * when it sends the reset notification. Make sure our state
> > -	 * reflects this change. The context will be marked enabled
> > -	 * on resubmission.
> > +	 * GuC will implicitly mark the context as non-schedulable when it sends
> > +	 * the reset notification. Make sure our state reflects this change. The
> > +	 * context will be marked enabled on resubmission. A small window exists
> > +	 * where the context could be block & unblocked (scheduling enable) while
> > +	 * this reset was inflight. If a scheduling enable is already is in
> > +	 * flight do not clear the enable.
> >  	 */
> > -	clr_context_enabled(ce);
> > +	spin_lock_irqsave(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> > +	if (!context_pending_enable(ce))
> > +		clr_context_enabled(ce);
> > +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> >  
> >  	rq = intel_context_find_active_request(ce);
> >  	if (!rq) {
> > @@ -1562,6 +1572,7 @@ static void guc_context_unblock(struct intel_context *ce)
> >  	spin_lock_irqsave(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> >  
> >  	if (unlikely(submission_disabled(guc) ||
> > +		     intel_context_is_banned(ce) ||
> >  		     !intel_context_is_pinned(ce) ||
> >  		     context_pending_disable(ce) ||
> >  		     context_blocked(ce) > 1)) {
> > -- 
> > 2.28.0
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch