[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] i915/guc: Run busyness worker only if gt is awake

[Umesh Nerlige Ramappa]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 08:44:39AM -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>   On 9/8/2023 10:16 PM, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
>
> The worker is canceled in the __gt_park path, but we still see it
> running sometimes during suspend. This is likely because some code is
> getting a gt wakeref in the __gt_park path.
>
>   This possible root-cause doesn't seem plausible to me, because a gt
>   wakeref would cause an unpark, so taking it within the park would probably
>   cause a deadlock. Is it not more likely that the worker re-queued itself?

Will drop the likely part. The worker running during suspend is the 
issue, so keeping that part.

>
> Only update stats if gt is awake. If not, intel_guc_busyness_park would
> have already updated the stats. Note that we do not requeue the worker
> if gt is not awake since intel_guc_busyness_unpark would do that at some
> point.
>
> If the gt was parked longer than time taken for GT timestamp to roll
> over, we ignore those rollovers since we don't care about tracking the
> exact GT time. We only care about roll overs when the gt is active and
> running workloads.
>
> Closes: [1]https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/7077
>
>   This needs a fixes tag. Also, I'm not 100% sure but I believe we prefer
>   "Link" to "Closes".

I thought Link was mostly for the patchworks link. I can change this to 
Link.

Any idea if there is a document/link that explains which tag to use for 
what? I have been confused by this before.

>
> Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa [2]<umesh.nerlige.ramappa at intel.com>
> ---
>  .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 4 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 e250bedf90fb..df31d6047ce9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> @@ -1457,10 +1457,27 @@ static void guc_timestamp_ping(struct work_struct *wrk)
>         struct intel_uc *uc = container_of(guc, typeof(*uc), guc);
>         struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
>         struct intel_context *ce;
> -       intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
>         unsigned long index;
>         int srcu, ret;
>
> +       /*
> +        * The worker is canceled in the __gt_park path, but we still see it
> +        * running sometimes during suspend. This is likely because some code
> +        * is getting a gt wakeref in the __gt_park path.
>
>   Same comment from before about this explanation. I would just remove this
>   part from the comment.
>
> +        *
> +        * Only update stats if gt is awake. If not, intel_guc_busyness_park
> +        * would have already updated the stats. Note that we do not requeue the
> +        * worker in this case since intel_guc_busyness_unpark would do that at
> +        * some point.
> +        *
> +        * If the gt was parked longer than time taken for GT timestamp to roll
> +        * over, we ignore those rollovers since we don't care about tracking
> +        * the exact GT time. We only care about roll overs when the gt is
> +        * active and running workloads.
> +        */
> +       if (!intel_gt_pm_get_if_awake(gt))
> +               return;
> +
>
>   Do we need to drop the _sync from the busyness stats worker parking if we
>   take the gt_pm wakeref in here, instead of an rpm one? because if the
>   gt_pm_put below causes a park and the park waits on this worker to
>   complete then we'll deadlock.

Hmm, My bad, That's not what I intended. It should be 
intel_runtime_pm_get_if_active(). I will change that

>
>         /*
>          * Synchronize with gt reset to make sure the worker does not
>          * corrupt the engine/guc stats. NB: can't actually block waiting
> @@ -1468,17 +1485,19 @@ static void guc_timestamp_ping(struct work_struct *wrk)
>          * this worker thread if started. So waiting would deadlock.
>          */
>         ret = intel_gt_reset_trylock(gt, &srcu);
> -       if (ret)
> +       if (ret) {
> +               intel_gt_pm_put(gt);
>                 return;
> +       }
>
> -       with_intel_runtime_pm(&gt->i915->runtime_pm, wakeref)
> -               __update_guc_busyness_stats(guc);
> +       __update_guc_busyness_stats(guc);
>
>         /* adjust context stats for overflow */
>         xa_for_each(&guc->context_lookup, index, ce)
>                 guc_context_update_stats(ce);
>
>         intel_gt_reset_unlock(gt, srcu);
> +       intel_gt_pm_put(gt);
>
>   I think this needs to go after the queuing, because it could cause a park
>   and if it does we don't want to re-queue the worker immediately after,
>   while if we queue it before then the park will cancel it.
>   Non-blocking style comment: with gt_pm_put the last thing in function, you
>   can also transform that early return in a "goto put;" and have a single
>   place for the gt_put.

Will change, although I am not sure if the runtime pm put may also cause 
a gt park. Assuming it can, I will make these changes.

Thanks
Umesh

>
>   Daniele
>
>
>         guc_enable_busyness_worker(guc);
>  }
>
>References
>
>   Visible links
>   1. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/7077
>   2. mailto:umesh.nerlige.ramappa at intel.com