[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 3/3] drm/i915/gt: Timeout when waiting for idle in suspending

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 14/11/2023 17:37, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 17:27 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> On 13/11/2023 17:57, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 13:58 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>> On 04/10/2023 18:59, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 13:46 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/09/2023 17:36, Teres Alexis, Alan Previn wrote:
> alan: snip
>>
>>> alan: I won't say its NOT fixing anything - i am saying it's not fixing
>>> this specific bug where we have the outstanding G2H from a context destruction
>>> operation that got dropped. I am okay with dropping this patch in the next rev
>>> but shall post a separate stand alone version of Patch3 - because I believe
>>> all other i915 subsystems that take runtime-pm's DO NOT wait forever when entering
>>> suspend - but GT is doing this. This means if there ever was a bug introduced,
>>> it would require serial port or ramoops collection to debug. So i think such a
>>> patch, despite not fixing this specific bug will be very helpful for debuggability
>>> of future issues. After all, its better to fail our suspend when we have a bug
>>> rather than to hang the kernel forever.
>>
>> Issue I have is that I am not seeing how it fails the suspend when
>> nothing is passed out from *void* wait_suspend(gt). To me it looks the
>> suspend just carries on. And if so, it sounds dangerous to allow it to
>> do that with any future/unknown bugs in the suspend sequence. Existing
>> timeout wedges the GPU (and all that entails). New code just says "meh
>> I'll just carry on regardless".
> 
> alan: So i did trace back the gt->wakeref before i posted these patches and
> see that within these runtime get/put calls, i believe the first 'get' leads
> to __intel_wakeref_get_first which calls intel_runtime_pm_get via rpm_get
> helper and eventually executes a pm_runtime_get_sync(rpm->kdev); (hanging off
> i915_device). (naturally there is a corresponding mirros for the '_put_last').
> So this means the first-get and last-put lets the kernel know. Thats why when
> i tested this patch, it did actually cause the suspend to abort from kernel side
> and the kernel would print a message indicating i915 was the one that didnt
> release all refs.

Ah that would be much better then.

Do you know if everything gets resumed/restored correctly in that case 
or we would need some additional work to maybe early exit from callers 
of wait_for_suspend()?

What I would also ask is to see if something like injecting a probing 
failure is feasible, so we can have this new timeout exit path 
constantly/regularly tested in CI.

Regards,

Tvrtko

> alan: Anyways, i have pulled this patch out of rev6 of this series and created a
> separate standalone patch for this patch #3 that we review independently.
>