intel-xe.lists.freedesktop.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Summers, Stuart" <stuart.summers@intel.com>
To: "Summers, Stuart" <stuart.summers@intel.com>
Cc: "intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org" <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	"Brost,  Matthew" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
	"Kassabri, Farah" <farah.kassabri@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] drm/xe: Cancel pending TLB inval workers on teardown
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 18:06:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <049695bfb6f8496cafef33310f574b0a52737761.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250825175721.89129-3-stuart.summers@intel.com>

On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 17:57 +0000, Stuart Summers wrote:
> Add a new _fini() routine on the GT TLB invalidation
> side to handle this worker cleanup on driver teardown.
> 
> v2: Move the TLB teardown to the gt fini() routine called during
>     gt_init rather than in gt_alloc. This way the GT structure stays
>     alive for while we reset the TLB state.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stuart Summers <stuart.summers@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c                  |  2 ++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.h |  1 +
>  3 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> index a3397f04abcc..178c4783bbda 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> @@ -603,6 +603,8 @@ static void xe_gt_fini(void *arg)
>         struct xe_gt *gt = arg;
>         int i;
>  
> +       xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fini(gt);
> +
>         for (i = 0; i < XE_ENGINE_CLASS_MAX; ++i)
>                 xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(&gt->fence_irq[i]);
>  
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
> index 75854b963d66..db00c5adead9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
> @@ -188,6 +188,18 @@ void xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_reset(struct xe_gt
> *gt)
>         mutex_unlock(&gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno_lock);
>  }
>  
> +/**
> + *
> + * xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fini - Clean up GT TLB invalidation state
> + *
> + * Cancel pending fence workers and clean up any additional
> + * GT TLB invalidation state.
> + */
> +void xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fini(struct xe_gt *gt)
> +{
> +       xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_reset(gt);

I've been seeing an issue on fault injection, running in a tight while
loop, where occasionally we see that a couple of sysfs files weren't
properly torn down on a prior driver instance, followed by TLB
invalidation timeouts. Up until today I was only able to reproduce that
with this series, so I wanted to be sure we weren't causing something
here, particularly with this _reset() call (one of the reasons I had
declined to include this in the original series). Today though, even
without the series, I was able to reproduce that behavior (-EEXIST on
sysfs create, followed by TLB inval timeout). So I don't think we
should block this series on that debug.

I see a few things in ci-buglog that could be related, although I don't
see any results in those to confirm:
https://gfx-ci.igk.intel.com/cibuglog-ng/issue/7175?query_key=a5707a4d3ae2ebb8c04ef6cea0ef747322df4ee1
https://gfx-ci.igk.intel.com/cibuglog-ng/issue/10412?query_key=402f2615406c4afa4814a29849b312a0c7b66e9c
https://gfx-ci.igk.intel.com/cibuglog-ng/issue/15004?query_key=e0ce601ae69ec76bbdf27293dc2919ba07357de3

Anyway, at least for this series, I think we can ignore that issue.

Thanks,
Stuart

> +}
> +
>  static bool tlb_invalidation_seqno_past(struct xe_gt *gt, int seqno)
>  {
>         int seqno_recv = READ_ONCE(gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno_recv);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.h
> index f7f0f2eaf4b5..3e4cff3922d6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.h
> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ struct xe_vm;
>  struct xe_vma;
>  
>  int xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_init_early(struct xe_gt *gt);
> +void xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fini(struct xe_gt *gt);
>  
>  void xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_reset(struct xe_gt *gt);
>  int xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_ggtt(struct xe_gt *gt);


  reply	other threads:[~2025-08-25 18:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-08-25 17:57 [PATCH 0/9] Add TLB invalidation abstraction Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 1/9] drm/xe: Move explicit CT lock in TLB invalidation sequence Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 2/9] drm/xe: Cancel pending TLB inval workers on teardown Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 18:06   ` Summers, Stuart [this message]
2025-08-25 18:20     ` Matthew Brost
2025-08-25 18:23       ` Summers, Stuart
2025-08-25 18:32         ` Summers, Stuart
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 3/9] drm/xe: s/tlb_invalidation/tlb_inval Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 4/9] drm/xe: Add xe_tlb_inval structure Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 5/9] drm/xe: Add xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_done_handler Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 6/9] drm/xe: Decouple TLB invalidations from GT Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 7/9] drm/xe: Prep TLB invalidation fence before sending Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 8/9] drm/xe: Add helpers to send TLB invalidations Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 17:57 ` [PATCH 9/9] drm/xe: Split TLB invalidation code in frontend and backend Stuart Summers
2025-08-25 19:09 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Add TLB invalidation abstraction (rev9) Patchwork
2025-08-25 19:10 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2025-08-25 20:09 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-08-26  6:18 ` ✓ Xe.CI.Full: " Patchwork
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-08-26 18:29 [PATCH 0/9] Add TLB invalidation abstraction Stuart Summers
2025-08-26 18:29 ` [PATCH 2/9] drm/xe: Cancel pending TLB inval workers on teardown Stuart Summers
2025-08-20 23:30 [PATCH 0/9] Add TLB invalidation abstraction Stuart Summers
2025-08-20 23:30 ` [PATCH 2/9] drm/xe: Cancel pending TLB inval workers on teardown Stuart Summers
2025-08-21 22:13   ` Matthew Brost
2025-08-21 23:34     ` Summers, Stuart
2025-08-22  2:21       ` Matthew Brost
2025-08-22 14:57         ` Summers, Stuart
2025-08-20 22:45 [PATCH 0/9] Add TLB invalidation abstraction Stuart Summers
2025-08-20 22:45 ` [PATCH 2/9] drm/xe: Cancel pending TLB inval workers on teardown Stuart Summers

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=049695bfb6f8496cafef33310f574b0a52737761.camel@intel.com \
    --to=stuart.summers@intel.com \
    --cc=farah.kassabri@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=matthew.brost@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).