[PATCH 04/12] drm/i915: Bypass LMEMBAR/GTTMMADR for MTL stolen memory access
Ville Syrjälä
ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
Thu Dec 14 02:03:21 UTC 2023
On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 08:18:15PM +0000, Sripada, Radhakrishna wrote:
> Hi Ville,
>
> +Nirmoy
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2023 1:30 AM
> > To: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org; Sripada, Radhakrishna
> > <radhakrishna.sripada at intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] drm/i915: Bypass LMEMBAR/GTTMMADR for MTL
> > stolen memory access
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:09:38AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > > Quoting Ville Syrjala (2023-12-13 02:42:29)
> > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > On MTL accessing stolen memory via the BARs is somehow borked,
> > > > and it can hang the machine. As a workaround let's bypass the
> > > > BARs and just go straight to DSMBASE/GSMBASE instead.
> > > >
> > > > Note that on every other platform this itself would hang the
> > > > machine, but on MTL the system firmware is expected to relax
> > > > the access permission guarding stolen memory to enable this
> > > > workaround, and thus direct CPU accesses should be fine.
> > >
> > > Shouldn't this have a proper workaround number assigned?
> >
> > I think there are various numbers, half of which I couldn't even
> > find in any database, and the other half I couldn't access for
> > whatever reason. So dunno what situation really is apart from
> > the firmware clearly implemening its part (since I can poke
> > DSM/GSM directly without killing the machine).
> >
> > RK do you know what we should call this?
> Nirmoy previously used Wa_22018444074 in [1].
>
> There were some associated issues Wa_13010847436 and Wa_14019519902
> which Nirmoy quoted in [2].
>
> Wa_22018529850 is derived from Wa_22018444074, is targeting the latest Gop
> driver change which is installed in bat-mtlp-8 hopefully it should help debug the issue further.
>
>
> Regarding the patch itself,
> Do we need to carve out the range from e820 the area around DSM if we can directly access the range from CPU
> without the bar?
IIRC we dropped the early quirks on new platforms under the
assumption that the BIOS no longer forgets to mark the DSM
as not-RAM/whatever. I don't think anything should change
there even when we are allowed direct CPU access.
But I don't recall if I double checked the e820 listing on
the MTL I was using. I was able to direct access to both DSM
and GSM for sure, and the address the GOP handed over to efifb
also pointed directly to DSM.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Radhakrishna(RK) Sripada
> 1. https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/120683/
> 2. https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/123329/
>
> >
> > >
> > > Regards, Joonas
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> > > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > > > index ee237043c302..252fe5cd6ede 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > > > @@ -941,7 +941,16 @@ i915_gem_stolen_lmem_setup(struct
> > drm_i915_private *i915, u16 type,
> > > > dsm_size = ALIGN_DOWN(lmem_size - dsm_base, SZ_1M);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - if (pci_resource_len(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR) < lmem_size) {
> > > > + if (IS_METEORLAKE(i915)) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Workaround: access via BAR can hang MTL, go directly to DSM.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Normally this would not work but on MTL the system firmware
> > > > + * should have relaxed the access permissions sufficiently.
> > > > + */
> > > > + io_start = intel_uncore_read64(uncore, GEN12_DSMBASE) &
> > GEN12_BDSM_MASK;
> > > > + io_size = dsm_size;
> > > > + } else if (pci_resource_len(pdev, GEN12_LMEM_BAR) < lmem_size) {
> > > > io_start = 0;
> > > > io_size = 0;
> > > > } else {
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
> > > > index 21a7e3191c18..ab71d74ec426 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_ggtt.c
> > > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> > > > #include "intel_ring.h"
> > > > #include "i915_drv.h"
> > > > #include "i915_pci.h"
> > > > +#include "i915_reg.h"
> > > > #include "i915_request.h"
> > > > #include "i915_scatterlist.h"
> > > > #include "i915_utils.h"
> > > > @@ -1152,13 +1153,23 @@ static unsigned int gen6_gttadr_offset(struct
> > drm_i915_private *i915)
> > > > static int ggtt_probe_common(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt, u64 size)
> > > > {
> > > > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = ggtt->vm.i915;
> > > > + struct intel_uncore *uncore = ggtt->vm.gt->uncore;
> > > > struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(i915->drm.dev);
> > > > phys_addr_t phys_addr;
> > > > u32 pte_flags;
> > > > int ret;
> > > >
> > > > GEM_WARN_ON(pci_resource_len(pdev, GEN4_GTTMMADR_BAR) !=
> > gen6_gttmmadr_size(i915));
> > > > - phys_addr = pci_resource_start(pdev, GEN4_GTTMMADR_BAR) +
> > gen6_gttadr_offset(i915);
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Workaround: access via BAR can hang MTL, go directly to GSM.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Normally this would not work but on MTL the system firmware
> > > > + * should have relaxed the access permissions sufficiently.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (IS_METEORLAKE(i915))
> > > > + phys_addr = intel_uncore_read64(uncore, GEN12_GSMBASE) &
> > GEN12_BDSM_MASK;
> > > > + else
> > > > + phys_addr = pci_resource_start(pdev, GEN4_GTTMMADR_BAR) +
> > gen6_gttadr_offset(i915);
> > > >
> > > > if (needs_wc_ggtt_mapping(i915))
> > > > ggtt->gsm = ioremap_wc(phys_addr, size);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.41.0
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > Ville Syrjälä
> > Intel
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list