From: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
To: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>,
<rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>, <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
<aravind.iddamsetty@linux.intel.com>, <raag.jadav@intel.com>,
<frank.scarbrough@intel.com>, <sk.anirban@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/9] drm/xe/xe_survivability: Add support for Runtime survivability mode
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:53:42 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <05a87ac8-5287-4144-a939-9c8d461103d0@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aG_0lw07ql_S2dib@unerlige-desk.amr.corp.intel.com>
Hi Umesh
On 7/10/2025 10:42 PM, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:29:44AM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
>> Hi Umesh
>>
>> On 7/10/2025 5:14 AM, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 04:50:17PM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
>>>> Certain runtime firmware errors can cause the device to be in a
>>>> unusable
>>>> state requiring a firmware flash to restore normal operation.
>>>> Runtime Survivability Mode indicates firmware flash is necessary by
>>>> wedging the device and exposing survivability mode sysfs.
>>>>
>>>> The below sysfs is an indication that device is in survivability mode
>>>>
>>>> /sys/bus/pci/devices/<device>/survivability_mode
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.h | 1 +
>>>> .../gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode_types.h | 1 +
>>>> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c b/drivers/
>>>> gpu/ drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
>>>> index fefb027b1c84..ca1cfa13525a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.c
>>>> @@ -137,7 +137,8 @@ static ssize_t survivability_mode_show(struct
>>>> device *dev,
>>>> struct xe_survivability_info *info = survivability->info;
>>>> int index = 0, count = 0;
>>>>
>>>> - count += sysfs_emit_at(buff, count, "Survivability mode type:
>>>> Boot\n");
>>>> + count += sysfs_emit_at(buff, count, "Survivability mode type:
>>>> %s\n",
>>>> + survivability->type ? "Runtime" : "Boot");
>>>>
>>>> if (!check_boot_failure(xe))
>>>> return count;
>>>> @@ -288,6 +289,45 @@ bool xe_survivability_mode_is_requested(struct
>>>> xe_device *xe)
>>>> return check_boot_failure(xe);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable - Initialize and enable
>>>> runtime survivability mode
>>>> + * @xe: xe device instance
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Initialize survivability information and enable runtime
>>>> survivability mode.
>>>> + * Runtime survivability mode is enabled when certain errors cause
>>>> the device to be
>>>> + * in non-recoverable state. The device is declared wedged with the
>>>> appropriate
>>>> + * recovery method and survivability mode sysfs exposed to userspace
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Return: 0 if runtime survivability mode is enabled or not
>>>> requested, negative error
>>>
>>> is the "not requested" still applicable here?
>>
>> Copied it from boot survivability. Not applicable, will remove this
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> + * code otherwise.
>>>> + */
>>>> +int xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable(struct xe_device *xe)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct xe_survivability *survivability = &xe->survivability;
>>>> + struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(xe->drm.dev);
>>>> + int ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!IS_DGFX(xe) || IS_SRIOV_VF(xe) || xe->info.platform <
>>>> XE_BATTLEMAGE) {
>>>
>>> Do you think this condition can be better handled with a
>>> has_runtime_survivability for platforms that support it?
>>
>> Was used once so added it here. Can be split out to a different function
>
> Oh, not a different function. I mean a has_* property. More like entries
> defined in xe_pci_types.h under struct xe_graphics_desc.
That might be unnecessary for now, since the function says not
applicable prior to bmg.
If in future, this is not consistent then we could add per pci_desc
Thanks
Riana
>
> Regards,
> Umesh
>
>>>
>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Runtime Survivability Mode not
>>>> supported\n");
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = init_survivability_mode(xe);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = create_survivability_sysfs(pdev);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to create survivability mode
>>>> sysfs\n");
>>>
>>> You do not return ret in the above if condition. Is that intenational?
>>
>> yeah this is intentional. The device has to be wedged since it is not
>> usable on such errors even without the sysfs.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Riana
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Umesh
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + survivability->type = XE_SURVIVABILITY_TYPE_RUNTIME;
>>>> + xe_device_set_wedged_method(xe, DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_VENDOR);
>>>> + xe_device_declare_wedged(xe);
>>>> +
>>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Runtime Survivability mode enabled\n");
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /**
>>>> * xe_survivability_mode_boot_enable - Initialize and enable boot
>>>> survivability mode
>>>> * @xe: xe device instance
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.h b/drivers/
>>>> gpu/ drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.h
>>>> index f6ee283ea5e8..1cc94226aa82 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode.h
>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>>>> struct xe_device;
>>>>
>>>> int xe_survivability_mode_boot_enable(struct xe_device *xe);
>>>> +int xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable(struct xe_device *xe);
>>>> bool xe_survivability_mode_is_boot_enabled(struct xe_device *xe);
>>>> bool xe_survivability_mode_is_requested(struct xe_device *xe);
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode_types.h b/
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode_types.h
>>>> index 5dce393498da..cd65a5d167c9 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode_types.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_survivability_mode_types.h
>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>>>>
>>>> enum xe_survivability_type {
>>>> XE_SURVIVABILITY_TYPE_BOOT,
>>>> + XE_SURVIVABILITY_TYPE_RUNTIME,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> struct xe_survivability_info {
>>>> --
>>>> 2.47.1
>>>>
>>
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-11 5:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-09 11:20 [PATCH v4 0/9] Handle Firmware reported Hardware Errors Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 1/9] drm: Add a vendor-specific recovery method to device wedged uevent Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 13:41 ` Simona Vetter
2025-07-09 14:09 ` Christian König
2025-07-09 14:18 ` Raag Jadav
2025-07-09 16:52 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-10 9:01 ` Simona Vetter
2025-07-10 9:37 ` Christian König
2025-07-10 10:24 ` Raag Jadav
2025-07-10 19:00 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2025-07-10 21:46 ` Raag Jadav
2025-07-11 5:17 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-11 6:08 ` Raag Jadav
2025-07-11 8:56 ` Simona Vetter
2025-07-11 8:59 ` Simona Vetter
2025-07-14 5:27 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-14 12:33 ` Simona Vetter
2025-07-09 14:46 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 2/9] drm/xe: Set GT as wedged before sending " Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 17:26 ` Matthew Brost
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 3/9] drm/xe: Add a helper function to set recovery method Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 4/9] drm/xe/xe_survivability: Refactor survivability mode Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 5/9] drm/xe/xe_survivability: Add support for Runtime " Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 23:44 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2025-07-10 5:59 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-10 17:12 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2025-07-11 5:23 ` Riana Tauro [this message]
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 6/9] drm/xe/doc: Document device wedged and runtime survivability Riana Tauro
2025-07-11 5:39 ` Raag Jadav
2025-07-11 6:09 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-12 5:45 ` Raag Jadav
2025-07-14 9:04 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 7/9] drm/xe: Add support to handle hardware errors Riana Tauro
2025-07-10 21:09 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2025-07-11 5:35 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-11 17:34 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 8/9] drm/xe/xe_hw_error: Handle CSC Firmware reported Hardware errors Riana Tauro
2025-07-11 0:36 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2025-07-11 5:46 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-11 17:38 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2025-07-09 11:20 ` [PATCH v4 9/9] drm/xe/xe_hw_error: Add fault injection to trigger csc error handler Riana Tauro
2025-07-11 17:41 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2025-07-14 7:07 ` Riana Tauro
2025-07-09 12:28 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Handle Firmware reported Hardware Errors (rev4) Patchwork
2025-07-09 12:30 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2025-07-09 12:44 ` ✗ CI.checksparse: warning " Patchwork
2025-07-09 13:06 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2025-07-09 15:02 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
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=05a87ac8-5287-4144-a939-9c8d461103d0@intel.com \
--to=riana.tauro@intel.com \
--cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
--cc=aravind.iddamsetty@linux.intel.com \
--cc=frank.scarbrough@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=raag.jadav@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=sk.anirban@intel.com \
--cc=umesh.nerlige.ramappa@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