From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: John.C.Harrison@Intel.com
Cc: Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org, DRI-Devel@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/guc: Temporarily bump the GuC load timeout
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2021 17:13:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211221011303.GA27635@jons-linux-dev-box> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211221005221.1090824-2-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 04:52:19PM -0800, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
> There is a known (but exceedingly unlikely) race condition where the
> asynchronous frequency management code could reduce the GT clock while
> a GuC reload is in progress (during a full GT reset). A fix is in
> progress but there are complex locking issues to be resolved. In the
> meantime bump the timeout to 500ms. Even at slowest clock, this
> should be sufficient. And in the working case, a larger timeout makes
> no difference.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
Any idea of the ETA for the proper fix? Also if the proper fix makes the
locking more complicated I'm probably of the opinion we just live with a
longer timer as full GTs shouldn't really ever happen in practice and if
they take a longer time, so be it.
Anyways for this patch:
Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fw.c | 13 +++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fw.c
> index 31420ce1ce6b..c03bde5ec61f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fw.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_fw.c
> @@ -105,12 +105,21 @@ static int guc_wait_ucode(struct intel_uncore *uncore)
> /*
> * Wait for the GuC to start up.
> * NB: Docs recommend not using the interrupt for completion.
> - * Measurements indicate this should take no more than 20ms, so a
> + * Measurements indicate this should take no more than 20ms
> + * (assuming the GT clock is at maximum frequency). So, a
> * timeout here indicates that the GuC has failed and is unusable.
> * (Higher levels of the driver may decide to reset the GuC and
> * attempt the ucode load again if this happens.)
> + *
> + * FIXME: There is a known (but exceedingly unlikely) race condition
> + * where the asynchronous frequency management code could reduce
> + * the GT clock while a GuC reload is in progress (during a full
> + * GT reset). A fix is in progress but there are complex locking
> + * issues to be resolved. In the meantime bump the timeout to
> + * 500ms. Even at slowest clock, this should be sufficient. And
> + * in the working case, a larger timeout makes no difference.
> */
> - ret = wait_for(guc_ready(uncore, &status), 100);
> + ret = wait_for(guc_ready(uncore, &status), 500);
> if (ret) {
> struct drm_device *drm = &uncore->i915->drm;
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-21 1:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-21 0:52 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/3] Update to GuC version 69.0.3 John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 0:52 ` John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 0:52 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/guc: Temporarily bump the GuC load timeout John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 0:52 ` John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 1:13 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2021-12-21 0:52 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/guc: Update to GuC version 69.0.3 John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 0:52 ` John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 0:52 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915/guc: Improve GuC loading status check/error reports John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 0:52 ` John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 0:56 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for Update to GuC version 69.0.3 Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-12-21 20:28 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/3] " John.C.Harrison
2021-12-21 20:29 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/guc: Temporarily bump the GuC load timeout John.C.Harrison
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211221011303.GA27635@jons-linux-dev-box \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=DRI-Devel@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org \
--cc=Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org \
--cc=John.C.Harrison@Intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.