[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 15/20] drm/i915/guc: Ensure H2G buffer updates visible before tail update

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 09:10:14AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 11:44:57AM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 03.06.2021 07:16, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > Ensure H2G buffer updates are visible before descriptor tail updates by
> > > inserting a barrier between the H2G buffer update and the tail. The
> > > barrier is simple wmb() for SMEM and is register write for LMEM. This is
> > > needed if more than 1 H2G can be inflight at once.
> > > 
> > > If this barrier is not inserted it is possible the descriptor tail
> > > update is scene by the GuC before H2G buffer update which results in the
> > > GuC reading a corrupt H2G value. This can bring down the H2G channel
> > > among other bad things.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > > index 80976fe40fbf..31f83956bfc3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > > @@ -328,6 +328,28 @@ static u32 ct_get_next_fence(struct intel_guc_ct *ct)
> > >  	return ++ct->requests.last_fence;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static void write_barrier(struct intel_guc_ct *ct)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct intel_guc *guc = ct_to_guc(ct);
> > > +	struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
> > > +
> > > +	if (i915_gem_object_is_lmem(guc->ct.vma->obj)) {
> > > +		GEM_BUG_ON(guc->send_regs.fw_domains);
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * This register is used by the i915 and GuC for MMIO based
> > > +		 * communication. Once we are in this code CTBs are the only
> > > +		 * method the i915 uses to communicate with the GuC so it is
> > > +		 * safe to write to this register (a value of 0 is NOP for MMIO
> > > +		 * communication). If we ever start mixing CTBs and MMIOs a new
> > > +		 * register will have to be chosen.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		intel_uncore_write_fw(gt->uncore, GEN11_SOFT_SCRATCH(0), 0);
> > 
> > can't we at least start with SOFT_SCRATCH register that is not used for
> > GuC MMIO based communication on Gen12 LMEM platforms? see [1]
> > 
> 
> We likely can use this but I really don't feel comfortable switching the
> register without some more testing first (e.g. let's change in this in
> internal, let it soak for bit, then make the change upstream).
> 
> > I really don't feel comfortable that we are touching a register that
> > elsewhere is protected with the mutex. And mixing CTBs and MMIO is not
> > far away.
> >
> 
> The only code that mixes CTBs and MMIOs is SRIOV which is a ways away
> from landing.

Maybe add a FIXME note as part of the SRIOV patch stack in internal to
track this?
-Daniel

> 
> Matt
>  
> > Michal
> > 
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/intel-gfx/51b9bd05-7d6f-29f1-de0f-3a14bade6c9c@intel.com/
> > 
> > > +	} else {
> > > +		/* wmb() sufficient for a barrier if in smem */
> > > +		wmb();
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  /**
> > >   * DOC: CTB Host to GuC request
> > >   *
> > > @@ -411,6 +433,12 @@ static int ct_write(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > >  	}
> > >  	GEM_BUG_ON(tail > size);
> > >  
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * make sure H2G buffer update and LRC tail update (if this triggering a
> > > +	 * submission) are visible before updating the descriptor tail
> > > +	 */
> > > +	write_barrier(ct);
> > > +
> > >  	/* now update desc tail (back in bytes) */
> > >  	desc->tail = tail * 4;
> > >  	return 0;
> > > 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch