Re: [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)

[Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@collabora.com>]

On 28/06/2022 09:46, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 27/06/2022 18:08, Robert Beckett wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22/06/2022 10:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21/06/2022 20:11, Robert Beckett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 21/06/2022 18:37, Patchwork wrote:
>>>>> *Patch Details*
>>>>> *Series:*    drm/i915: ttm for stolen (rev5)
>>>>> *URL:*    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/ 
>>>>> <https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/101396/>
>>>>> *State:*    failure
>>>>> *Details:* 
>>>>> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html 
>>>>> <https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/index.html> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_11790 -> Patchwork_101396v5
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Summary
>>>>>
>>>>> *FAILURE*
>>>>>
>>>>> Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_101396v5 absolutely 
>>>>> need to be
>>>>> verified manually.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
>>>>> introduced in Patchwork_101396v5, 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_101396v5/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Participating hosts (40 -> 41)
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional (2): fi-icl-u2 bat-dg2-9
>>>>> Missing (1): fi-bdw-samus
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Possible new issues
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in 
>>>>> Patchwork_101396v5:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       IGT changes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Possible regressions
>>>>>
>>>>>   * igt@i915_selftest@live@reset:
>>>>>       o bat-adlp-4: PASS
>>>>> <https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11790/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@live@reset.html> 
>>>>>
>>>>>         -> DMESG-FAIL
>>>>> <https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_101396v5/bat-adlp-4/igt@i915_selftest@live@reset.html> 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I keep hitting clobbered pages during engine resets on bat-adlp-4.
>>>> It seems to happen most of the time on that machine and occasionally 
>>>> on bat-adlp-6.
>>>>
>>>> Should bat-adlp-4 be considered an unreliable machine like 
>>>> bat-adlp-6 is for now?
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, seeing the history of this in
>>>>
>>>> commit 3da3c5c1c9825c24168f27b021339e90af37e969 "drm/i915: Exclude 
>>>> low pages (128KiB) of stolen from use"
>>>>
>>>> could this be an indication that maybe the original issue is worse 
>>>> on adlp machines?
>>>> I have only ever seen page page 135 or 136 clobbered across many 
>>>> runs via trybot, so it looks fairly consistent.
>>>> Though excluding the use of over 540K of stolen might be too severe.
>>>
>>> Don't know but I see that on the latest version you even hit pages 
>>> 165/166.
>>>
>>> Any history of hitting this in CI without your series? If not, are 
>>> there some other changes which could explain it? Are you touching the 
>>> selftest itself?
>>>
>>> Hexdump of the clobbered page looks quite complex. Especially 
>>> POISON_FREE. Any idea how that ends up there?
>>
>>
>> (see 
>> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Trybot_105517v4/fi-rkl-guc/igt@i915_selftest@live@reset.html#dmesg-warnings702) 
>>
>>
>> after lots of slow debug via CI, it looks like the issue is that a 
>> ring buffer was allocated and taking up that page during the initial 
>> crc capture in the test, but by the time it came to check for 
>> corruption, it had been freed from that page.
>>
>> The test has a number of weaknesses:
>>
>> 1. the busy check is done twice, without taking in to account any 
>> change in between. I assume previously this could be relied on never 
>> to occur, but now it can for some reason (more on that later)
> 
> You mean the stolen page used/unused test? Probably the premise is that 
> the test controls the driver completely ie. is the sole user and the two 
> checks are run at the time where nothing else could have changed the state.
> 
> With the nerfed request (as with GuC) this actually should hold. In the 
> generic case I am less sure, my working knowledge faded a bit, but 
> perhaps there was something guaranteeing the spinner couldn't have been 
> retired yet at the time of the second check. Would need clarifying at 
> least in comments.
>>
>> 2. the engine reset returns early with an error for guc submission 
>> engines, but it is silently ignored in the test. Perhaps it should 
>> ignore guc submission engines as it is a largely useless test for 
>> those situations.
> 
> Yes looks dodgy indeed. You will need to summon the owners of the GuC 
> backend to comment on this.
> 
> However even if the test should be skipped with GuC it is extremely 
> interesting that you are hitting this so I suspect there is a more 
> serious issue at play.

indeed. That's why I am keen to get to the root cause instead of just 
slapping in a fix.

> 
>> A quick obvious fix is to have a busy bitmask that remembers each 
>> page's busy state initially and only check for corruption if it was 
>> busy during both checks.
>>
>> However, the main question is why this is occurring now with my changes.
>> I have added more debug to check where the stolen memory is being 
>> freed, but the first run last night didn't hit the issue for once.
>> I am running again now, will report back if I figure out where it is 
>> being freed.
>>
>> I am pretty sure the "corruption" (which isn't actually corruption) is 
>> from a ring buffer.
>> The POISON_FREE is the only difference between the captured before and 
>> after dumps:
>>
>> [0040] 00000000 02800000 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 6b6b6b6b 
>> 6b6b6b6b
>>
>> with the 2nd dword being the MI_ARB_CHECK used for the spinner.
>> I think this is the request poisoning from i915_request_retire()
>>
>> The bit I don't know yet is why a ring buffer was freed between the 
>> initial crc capture and the corruption check. The spinner should be 
>> active across the entire test, maintaining a ref on the context and 
>> it's ring.
>>
>> hopefully my latest debug will give more answers.
> 
> Yeah if you can figure our whether the a) spinner is still active during 
> the 2nd check (as I think it should be), and b) is the corruption 
> detected in the same pages which were used in the 1st pass that would be 
> interesting.

yep. The latest run is still stuck in the CI queue after 27 hours.
I think I have enough debug in there to catch it now.
Hopefully I can get a root cause once it gets chance to run.


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tvrtko
> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Btw what is the benefit of converting stolen to start with? It's not 
>>> much of a backend since it just uses the drm range manager. So quite 
>>> thin and uneventful. Diffstats for the series also do not look like 
>>> you end up with much code reduction?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tvrtko