Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/bxt: work around HW coherency issue when accessing GPU seqno

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com>,
	Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/bxt: work around HW coherency issue when accessing GPU seqno
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 20:34:51 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150608173451.GF5176@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150608171247.GD11457@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:12:47PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 06:08:00PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> > On 08/06/15 17:28, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > By running igt/store_dword_loop_render on BXT we can hit a coherency
> > > problem where the seqno written at GPU command completion time is not
> > > seen by the CPU. This results in __i915_wait_request seeing the stale
> > > seqno and not completing the request (not considering the lost
> > > interrupt/GPU reset mechanism). I also verified that this isn't a case
> > > of a lost interrupt, or that the command didn't complete somehow: when
> > > the coherency issue occured I read the seqno via an uncached GTT mapping
> > > too. While the cached version of the seqno still showed the stale value
> > > the one read via the uncached mapping was the correct one.
> > > 
> > > Work around this issue by clflushing the corresponding CPU cacheline
> > > following any store of the seqno and preceding any reading of it. When
> > > reading it do this only when the caller expects a coherent view.
> > > 
> > > Testcase: igt/store_dword_loop_render
> > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
> > 
> > Not necessarily a cure for this, but BSpec says of MI_STORE_DATA_IMM
> > (and MI_STORE_DATA_INDEX):
> > 
> > 	This command simply initiates the write operation with
> > 	command execution proceeding normally. Although the write
> > 	operation is guaranteed to complete "eventually", there is
> > 	no mechanism to synchronize command execution with the
> > 	completion (or even initiation) of these operations.
> > 
> > So shouldn't we use MI_FLUSH_DW or PIPE_CONTROL to update the seqno in
> > the HWSP instead?
> 
> iirc there is also no guarrantee for when the post-sync write op is
> completed for a FLUSH_DW/PIPE_CONTROL either. I'd be happy to be
> corrected!

My reading of the spec suggests that something like this could work:
PIPE_CONTROL w/ PIPE_CONTROL_QW_WRITE
PIPE_CONTROL w/ PIPE_CONTROL_NOTIFY | PIPE_CONTROL_FLUSH_ENABLE

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx