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: 7+ 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 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915/guc: Temporarily bump the GuC load timeout 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 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915/guc: Improve GuC loading status check/error reports 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox