[Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

On memory constrained systems it may happen that no pages are available
for serving object creation attempt during engine park.  Since we can
and we do ignore that failure, let's suppress possible warnings from
page allocator to avoid confusion and make CI happy.

Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
index 3be679741d22..99626fd02963 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static bool switch_to_kernel_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
 	flags = __timeline_mark_lock(ce);
 	GEM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ce->timeline->active_count) < 0);
 
-	rq = __i915_request_create(ce, GFP_NOWAIT);
+	rq = __i915_request_create(ce, GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
 	if (IS_ERR(rq))
 		/* Context switch failed, hope for the best! Maybe reset? */
 		goto out_unlock;
-- 
2.21.1

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:19:06)
> On memory constrained systems it may happen that no pages are available
> for serving object creation attempt during engine park.  Since we can
> and we do ignore that failure, let's suppress possible warnings from
> page allocator to avoid confusion and make CI happy.

The effect of ignoring it though is dangerous, hence why I had a
warning.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:21 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:19:06)
> > On memory constrained systems it may happen that no pages are available
> > for serving object creation attempt during engine park.  Since we can
> > and we do ignore that failure, let's suppress possible warnings from
> > page allocator to avoid confusion and make CI happy.
> 
> The effect of ignoring it though is dangerous, hence why I had a
> warning.

Then maybe just WARN() from switch_to_kernel_context() on
__i915_request_create() returning -ENOMEM instead?

Thanks,
Janusz

> -Chris

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:28:03)
> On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:21 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:19:06)
> > > On memory constrained systems it may happen that no pages are available
> > > for serving object creation attempt during engine park.  Since we can
> > > and we do ignore that failure, let's suppress possible warnings from
> > > page allocator to avoid confusion and make CI happy.
> > 
> > The effect of ignoring it though is dangerous, hence why I had a
> > warning.
> 
> Then maybe just WARN() from switch_to_kernel_context() on
> __i915_request_create() returning -ENOMEM instead?

The warning exists already. The only real question is what to do about
it; the best answer would be to preallocate the final request during
unpark where we can report an error, but that would take a bit more
effort to refactor request allocation. Hence the warning to make it a
futureselves problem.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:28:03)
> > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:21 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:19:06)
> > > > On memory constrained systems it may happen that no pages are available
> > > > for serving object creation attempt during engine park.  Since we can
> > > > and we do ignore that failure, let's suppress possible warnings from
> > > > page allocator to avoid confusion and make CI happy.
> > > 
> > > The effect of ignoring it though is dangerous, hence why I had a
> > > warning.
> > 
> > Then maybe just WARN() from switch_to_kernel_context() on
> > __i915_request_create() returning -ENOMEM instead?
> 
> The warning exists already. The only real question is what to do about
> it; the best answer would be to preallocate the final request during
> unpark where we can report an error, but that would take a bit more
> effort to refactor request allocation. Hence the warning to make it a
> futureselves problem.

I meant a warning with a very specific message that could be filtered
easily by CI for now.

Thanks,
Janusz

> -Chris

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:36:21)
> On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:28:03)
> > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:21 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:19:06)
> > > > > On memory constrained systems it may happen that no pages are available
> > > > > for serving object creation attempt during engine park.  Since we can
> > > > > and we do ignore that failure, let's suppress possible warnings from
> > > > > page allocator to avoid confusion and make CI happy.
> > > > 
> > > > The effect of ignoring it though is dangerous, hence why I had a
> > > > warning.
> > > 
> > > Then maybe just WARN() from switch_to_kernel_context() on
> > > __i915_request_create() returning -ENOMEM instead?
> > 
> > The warning exists already. The only real question is what to do about
> > it; the best answer would be to preallocate the final request during
> > unpark where we can report an error, but that would take a bit more
> > effort to refactor request allocation. Hence the warning to make it a
> > futureselves problem.
> 
> I meant a warning with a very specific message that could be filtered
> easily by CI for now.

It has a very specific stacktrace, and I hope by filtered you mean
identified and reported as an issue, possibly with multiple causes since
this is an indication that reclaim is snafu.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/75409/
State : failure

== Summary ==

CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_8236 -> Patchwork_17178
====================================================

Summary
-------

  **FAILURE**

  Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_17178 absolutely need to be
  verified manually.
  
  If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
  introduced in Patchwork_17178, please notify your bug team to allow them
  to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.

  External URL: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17178/index.html

Possible new issues
-------------------

  Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_17178:

### IGT changes ###

#### Possible regressions ####

  * igt@gem_tiled_fence_blits@basic:
    - fi-blb-e6850:       [PASS][1] -> [DMESG-WARN][2]
   [1]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8236/fi-blb-e6850/igt@gem_tiled_fence_blits@basic.html
   [2]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17178/fi-blb-e6850/igt@gem_tiled_fence_blits@basic.html

  
#### Warnings ####

  * igt@kms_busy@basic@modeset:
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       [DMESG-FAIL][3] ([i915#62]) -> [FAIL][4]
   [3]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8236/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_busy@basic@modeset.html
   [4]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17178/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_busy@basic@modeset.html

  
#### Suppressed ####

  The following results come from untrusted machines, tests, or statuses.
  They do not affect the overall result.

  * {igt@gem_wait@busy@all}:
    - fi-elk-e7500:       NOTRUN -> [FAIL][5]
   [5]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17178/fi-elk-e7500/igt@gem_wait@busy@all.html

  
Known issues
------------

  Here are the changes found in Patchwork_17178 that come from known issues:

### IGT changes ###

#### Issues hit ####

  * igt@i915_selftest@live@execlists:
    - fi-kbl-r:           [PASS][6] -> [INCOMPLETE][7] ([CI#80] / [i915#656])
   [6]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8236/fi-kbl-r/igt@i915_selftest@live@execlists.html
   [7]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17178/fi-kbl-r/igt@i915_selftest@live@execlists.html

  
#### Warnings ####

  * igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-modeset:
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       [DMESG-WARN][8] ([i915#62] / [i915#92]) -> [DMESG-WARN][9] ([i915#62] / [i915#92] / [i915#95]) +5 similar issues
   [8]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8236/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-modeset.html
   [9]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17178/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_flip@basic-flip-vs-modeset.html

  * igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-edid:
    - fi-kbl-x1275:       [DMESG-WARN][10] ([i915#62] / [i915#92] / [i915#95]) -> [DMESG-WARN][11] ([i915#62] / [i915#92]) +7 similar issues
   [10]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_8236/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-edid.html
   [11]: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17178/fi-kbl-x1275/igt@kms_force_connector_basic@force-edid.html

  
  {name}: This element is suppressed. This means it is ignored when computing
          the status of the difference (SUCCESS, WARNING, or FAILURE).

  [CI#80]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/i915-infra/issues/80
  [i915#62]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/62
  [i915#656]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/656
  [i915#92]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/92
  [i915#95]: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/issues/95


Participating hosts (47 -> 43)
------------------------------

  Additional (4): fi-hsw-peppy fi-skl-6770hq fi-skl-6600u fi-elk-e7500 
  Missing    (8): fi-kbl-soraka fi-ilk-m540 fi-hsw-4200u fi-bsw-cyan fi-ctg-p8600 fi-kbl-7560u fi-byt-clapper fi-bdw-samus 


Build changes
-------------

  * CI: CI-20190529 -> None
  * Linux: CI_DRM_8236 -> Patchwork_17178

  CI-20190529: 20190529
  CI_DRM_8236: 698ce59acca37b93bfcdee6899504be3eb113097 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux
  IGT_5556: 311cb1b360b7ae00fab80b822cd34fd512f08ce9 @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/xorg/app/intel-gpu-tools
  Patchwork_17178: cf5934e7db8c89fad1381a644c22439a1d0df70e @ git://anongit.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/linux


== Linux commits ==

cf5934e7db8c drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_17178/index.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/i915: Suppress page allocation warnings on engine park

[Janusz Krzysztofik]

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:36:21)
> > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:28:03)
> > > > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 11:21 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2020-04-02 11:19:06)
> > > > > > On memory constrained systems it may happen that no pages are available
> > > > > > for serving object creation attempt during engine park.  Since we can
> > > > > > and we do ignore that failure, let's suppress possible warnings from
> > > > > > page allocator to avoid confusion and make CI happy.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The effect of ignoring it though is dangerous, hence why I had a
> > > > > warning.
> > > > 
> > > > Then maybe just WARN() from switch_to_kernel_context() on
> > > > __i915_request_create() returning -ENOMEM instead?
> > > 
> > > The warning exists already. The only real question is what to do about
> > > it; the best answer would be to preallocate the final request during
> > > unpark where we can report an error, but that would take a bit more
> > > effort to refactor request allocation. Hence the warning to make it a
> > > futureselves problem.
> > 
> > I meant a warning with a very specific message that could be filtered
> > easily by CI for now.
> 
> It has a very specific stacktrace, 

If CI is able to filter on specific stacktrace then OK.

> and I hope by filtered you mean
> identified and reported as an issue, possibly with multiple causes since
> this is an indication that reclaim is snafu.

Identified and reported as the reclaim issue specifically rather than
something quite general like:
TGL: igt@gem_exec_create@madvise - dmesg-warn - SUCCESS, page allocation failure: order:0, mode:0x40810(GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_COMP|__GFP_RECLAIMABLE), nodemask=(null)

Thanks,
Janusz

> -Chris

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx