[Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 3/7] drm/xe/tlb: increment next seqno after successful CT send

[Matthew Brost]

On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> If we are in the middle of a GT reset or similar the CT might be
> disabled, such that the CT send fails. However we already incremented
> gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno which might lead to warnings, since we
> effectively just skipped a seqno:
> 
>     0000:00:02.0: drm_WARN_ON(expected_seqno != msg[0])
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza at intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
> index 2fcb477604e2..b38da572d268 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
> @@ -124,10 +124,6 @@ static int send_tlb_invalidation(struct xe_guc *guc,
>  		trace_xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fence_send(fence);
>  	}
>  	action[1] = seqno;
> -	gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno = (gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno + 1) %
> -		TLB_INVALIDATION_SEQNO_MAX;
> -	if (!gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno)
> -		gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno = 1;
>  	ret = xe_guc_ct_send_locked(&guc->ct, action, len,
>  				    G2H_LEN_DW_TLB_INVALIDATE, 1);
>  	if (!ret && fence) {
> @@ -137,8 +133,13 @@ static int send_tlb_invalidation(struct xe_guc *guc,
>  					   &gt->tlb_invalidation.fence_tdr,
>  					   TLB_TIMEOUT);
>  	}
> -	if (!ret)

Do we now (after this entire series) have the another race where the
below warn could fire as the CT fast path executes before we update the
seqno value? Would it be better to just roll back the seqno on error?

Matt

> +	if (!ret) {
> +		gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno = (gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno + 1) %
> +			TLB_INVALIDATION_SEQNO_MAX;
> +		if (!gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno)
> +			gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno = 1;
>  		ret = seqno;
> +	}
>  	if (ret < 0 && fence)
>  		invalidation_fence_signal(fence);
>  	mutex_unlock(&guc->ct.lock);
> -- 
> 2.41.0
>