From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Raag Jadav" <raag.jadav@intel.com>, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/7] drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 03:32:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-173672@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016031559.427941-2-raag.jadav@intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] drm/xe: gt_wedge_worker memory access assertion fails when device is suspended
--
commit 375de707bf2e4590076210ea91f9aecb2bcce131
Author: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging
This commit introduces a GT ordered workqueue for wedging to avoid tearing
down exec queues synchronously and disrupting the scheduler while jobs are
in-flight. It also uses the for_each_initialized_gt() macro to help avoid
races if the device is declared wedged in the probe sequence.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> index bc9bf6f0b5a79..27f32627a1f9b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1204,6 +1209,15 @@ struct xe_hw_engine *xe_gt_any_hw_engine(struct xe_gt *gt)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +static void gt_wedge_worker(struct work_struct *w)
> +{
> + struct xe_gt *gt = container_of(w, typeof(*gt), wedge.worker);
> +
> + xe_device_assert_mem_access(gt_to_xe(gt));
[Severity: High]
Does this assertion safely hold in all contexts? The changelog mentions that
v9 drops the runtime PM guard because callers already hold a reference.
However, looking at the async callers that eventually invoke this worker,
they don't seem to actively hold a runtime PM reference that guarantees the
device is awake.
For example, when an AMC alert is handled:
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_amc.c:xe_amc_work() {
...
case AMC_ALERT_CATERR:
dev_warn(amc->i2c->drm_dev, "AMC Alert: %s\n",
amc_alert[alert_reason]);
xe_device_declare_wedged(i2c_client_to_xe_device(client));
break;
...
}
Inside xe_device_declare_wedged(), the code uses xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume()
and then loops over GTs to call xe_gt_declare_wedged(), which queues this
worker. Since xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume() does not wake up a suspended
device, couldn't this result in gt_wedge_worker() executing while the device
is suspended, failing the xe_device_assert_mem_access() assertion and crashing
the kernel?
A similar pattern appears in
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_error.c:prepare_device_for_reset(), which also uses
xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume() before invoking the wedge path.
> + xe_uc_declare_wedged(>->uc);
> + xe_tlb_inval_reset(>->tlb_inval);
> +}
> +
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261016031559.427941-1-raag.jadav@intel.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 3:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 3:15 [PATCH v9 0/7] Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v9 1/7] drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 3:32 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v9 2/7] drm/xe: Drop xe_device_set_wedged_method() Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v9 3/7] drm/xe: Move xe_device_wedged_fini() registration to xe_device_probe_early() Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v9 4/7] drm/xe: Make xe_device_declare_wedged() IRQ safe Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 3:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v9 5/7] drm/xe/pci_error: Flush GT wedge worker before bus reset Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 3:33 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v9 6/7] drm/xe: Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 3:15 ` [PATCH v9 7/7] drm/xe/ras: Move xe_ras_process_errors() to xe_ras Raag Jadav
2026-10-16 3:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 3:22 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Introduce xe_wedge (rev8) Patchwork
2026-10-16 3:25 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-10-16 4:03 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
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=sashiko-outbox-173672@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=raag.jadav@intel.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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.