From: "Nilawar, Badal" <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
To: "Ghimiray, Himal Prasad" <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>,
"Michal Wajdeczko" <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>,
<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/23] drm/xe: Error handling in xe_force_wake_get()
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 11:18:47 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7d1e6ccc-3dc1-4cdc-a30e-f0f1b0f12193@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4853d43b-0eb2-414c-816b-96e25bc6d604@intel.com>
On 13-09-2024 18:47, Ghimiray, Himal Prasad wrote:
>
>
> On 13-09-2024 16:56, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 13.09.2024 05:59, Ghimiray, Himal Prasad wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13-09-2024 03:01, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12.09.2024 21:15, Himal Prasad Ghimiray wrote:
>>>>> If an acknowledgment timeout occurs for a domain awake request, do not
>>>>> increment the reference count for the domain. This ensures that
>>>>> subsequent _get calls do not incorrectly assume the domain is
>>>>> awake. The
>>>>> return value is a mask of domains whose reference counts were
>>>>> incremented, and these domains need to be released using
>>>>> xe_force_wake_put.
>>>>>
>>>>> The caller needs to compare the return value with the input domains to
>>>>> determine the success or failure of the operation and decide
>>>>> whether to
>>>>> continue or return accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> While at it, add simple kernel-doc for xe_force_wake_get()
>>>>>
>>>>> Cc: Badal Nilawar <badal.nilawar@intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
>>>>> Cc: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> +-----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
>>>>> index a64c14757c84..fa42d652d23f 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
>>>>> @@ -150,26 +150,49 @@ static int domain_sleep_wait(struct xe_gt *gt,
>>>>> (ffs(tmp__) - 1))) && \
>>>>> domain__->reg_ctl.addr)
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * xe_force_wake_get : Increase the domain refcount; if it was 0
>>>>> initially, wake the domain
>>>>
>>>> while likely this is still recognized by the kernel-doc tool, this is
>>>> not correct notation for the function() documentation
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume you are suggesting %s/xe_force_wake_get/xe_force_wake_get()
>>> will fix it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/doc-guide/kernel-doc.html#function-
>>>> documentation
>>>>
>>>>> + * @fw: struct xe_force_wake
>>>>> + * @domains: forcewake domains to get refcount on
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Increment refcount for the force-wake domain. If the domain is
>>>>> + * asleep, awaken it and wait for acknowledgment within the specified
>>>>> + * timeout. If a timeout occurs, decrement the refcount.
>>>>
>>>> not sure if doc shall be 1:1 of low level implementation details
>>>
>>> Does this sound okay ?
>>> This function takes references for the input @domains and wakes them if
>>> they are asleep.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> + * The caller should compare the return value with the @domains to
>>>>> + * determine the success or failure of the operation.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Return: mask of refcount increased domains.
>>>>
>>>> if we return a 'mask' then maybe it should be of 'unsigned int' type?
>>>
>>> Agreed. Will fix in next version.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If the return value is
>>>>> + * equal to the input parameter @domains, the operation is considered
>>>>> + * successful. Otherwise, the operation is considered a failure, and
>>>>> + * the caller should handle the failure case, potentially returning
>>>>> + * -ETIMEDOUT.
>>>>
>>>> it looks that all problems with the nice API is due to the
>>>> XE_FORCEWAKE_ALL that is not a single domain ID and requires extra care
>>>>
>>>> maybe there should be different pair of functions:
>>>
>>> I am not convinced with different pair of functions:
>>>
>>> In current implementation:
>>>
>>> int mask = xe_force_wake_get(fw, domains)
>>> if (mask != domains) {
>>> Non critical path continue with warning;
>>> or
>>> critical path:
>>> xe_force_wake_put(fw, mask);
>>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>> }
>>>
>>> do_ops;
>>> xe_force_wake_put(fw, mask);
>>> return err;
>>>
>>> Above flow remains intact irrespective of individual domains or
>>> FORCEWAKE_ALL.
>>>
>>> In case of individual domains if (mask != domains) can be replaced with
>>> (!mask) and user can avoid xe_force_wake_put(fw, mask) in failure path
>>> since mask is 0;
>>
>> so maybe we should have (by reinventing i915?):
>>
>> // opaque, but zero means failure/no domains are awake
>> typedef unsigned long xe_wakeref_t;
>>
>>
>> // caller should test for ref != 0
>> // but shall call put if ref != 0
>> xe_wakeref_t xe_force_wake_get(fw, enum xe_force_wake_domains d)
>>
>> // safe to call with ref == 0
>> void xe_force_wake_put(fw, xe_wakeref_t ref)
>>
>>
>> // helpers for critical work that must be sure about domain
>>
>> // compares opaque ref with explicit domain != ALL
>> // can be used by the code that obtained the ref
>> bool xe_wakeref_has_domain(xe_wakeref_t, enum xe_force_wake_domains d)
>>
>> // compares fw with explicit domain != ALL
>> // can be used by the code that does not have direct access to the ref
>> bool xe_force_wake_is_awake(fw, enum xe_force_wake_domains d)
>>
>>
>> // helpers for checking correctness
>> void xe_force_wake_assert_held(fw, enum xe_force_wake_domains d)
>>
>>
>> then usage would be:
>>
>> xe_wakeref_t ref;
>>
>> ref = xe_force_wake_get(fw, d);
>> if (ref) {
>> // ...
>> xe_force_wake_put(fw, ref);
>> }
>>
>> or:
>>
>> xe_wakeref_t ref;
>>
>> ref = xe_force_wake_get(fw, ALL);
>> if (xe_wakeref_has_domain(ref, d1))
>> // ... critical work1
>> if (xe_wakeref_has_domain(ref, d2))
>> // ... critical work2
>> xe_force_wake_put(fw, ref);
>>
>>
>> so above will be very similar to what you have but by having explicit
>> types IMO it will help connect all functions into proper use-case flow
>
>
> Agreed implementation/usage will be same, will use explicit type for
> clarity.
> IMO typedef unsigned int xe_wakeref_t is sufficient instead of
> typedef unsigned long xe_wakeref_t;
I agree with this.
Regards,
Badal
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> // for single domain where ret=0 is success, ret<0 is error
>>>
>>> This leads to caller only calling xe_force_wake_put incase of get
>>> success. so in case of caller continuing with failure, he will need to
>>> ensure the put is not called.
>>>
>>> for example:
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> ret = xe_force_wake_get(fw, DOMAIN_GT);
>>> XE_WARN_ON(ret)
>>> if(!ret)
>>> xe_force_wake_put(fw, DOMAIN_GT);
>>>
>>>> int xe_force_wake_get(fw, enum xe_force_wake_domain_id id);
>>>> void xe_force_wake_put(fw, enum xe_force_wake_domain_id id);
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> // for all domain where ret=0 is success, ret<0 is error
>>>> int int xe_force_wake_get_all(fw);
>>>> void xe_force_wake_put_all(fw);
>>>
>>> In case of xe_force_wake_get_all(fw) failure, how the caller will know
>>> which domains got awake and which failed ?
>>>
>>> ret = xe_force_wake_get_all(fw);
>>> if(!ret)
>>> No way to put awake domains to sleep
>>
>> in case of failure, it would be the responsibility of the
>> xe_force_wake_get_all() to put all partial awakes immediately, since it
>> failed to awake all requested domains (same as in single domain case)
>>
>> but let's drop this idea
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> // input: mask of domains, return: mask of domain
>>>> unsigned int xe_force_wake_get_mask(fw, mask);
>>>> void xe_force_wake_put_mask(fw, mask);
>>>>
>>>> this last one can be just main implementation (static or public if we
>>>> really want to continue with random set of enabled domains)
>>>>
>>>>> + */
>>>>> int xe_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
>>>>> enum xe_force_wake_domains domains)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct xe_gt *gt = fw->gt;
>>>>> struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain;
>>>>> - enum xe_force_wake_domains tmp, woken = 0;
>>>>> + enum xe_force_wake_domains tmp, awake_rqst = 0, awake_ack = 0;
>>>>
>>>> it looks that you're abusing even more all enum variables by treating
>>>> them as plain integers
>>>
>>> Miss at my end. Will address them in next version.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>>> - int ret = 0;
>>>>> + int ret = domains;
>>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&fw->lock, flags);
>>>>> for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, domains, fw, tmp) {
>>>>> if (!domain->ref++) {
>>>>> - woken |= BIT(domain->id);
>>>>> + awake_rqst |= BIT(domain->id);
>>>>> domain_wake(gt, domain);
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> - for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, woken, fw, tmp) {
>>>>> - ret |= domain_wake_wait(gt, domain);
>>>>> + for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, awake_rqst, fw, tmp) {
>>>>> + if (domain_wake_wait(gt, domain) == 0) {
>>>>> + awake_ack |= BIT(domain->id);
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + ret &= ~BIT(domain->id);
>>>>> + --domain->ref;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>> - fw->awake_domains |= woken;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + fw->awake_domains |= awake_ack;
>>>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fw->lock, flags);
>>>>> return ret;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-17 5:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-12 19:15 [PATCH v2 00/23] Fix xe_force_wake_get() failure handling Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 01/23] drm/xe: Error handling in xe_force_wake_get() Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 21:31 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-09-13 3:59 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-13 11:26 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-09-13 13:17 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-17 5:48 ` Nilawar, Badal [this message]
2024-09-17 18:50 ` Matthew Brost
2024-09-18 6:32 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-18 7:19 ` Jani Nikula
2024-09-18 14:50 ` Jani Nikula
2024-09-19 11:07 ` Nilawar, Badal
2024-09-19 11:36 ` Jani Nikula
2024-09-19 12:32 ` Nilawar, Badal
2024-09-23 12:36 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-23 16:15 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 02/23] drm/xe: Modify xe_force_wake_put to handle _get returned mask Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 21:34 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-09-13 4:05 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 03/23] drm/xe/device: Update handling of xe_force_wake_get return Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 04/23] drm/xe/hdcp: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-13 4:23 ` Kandpal, Suraj
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 05/23] drm/xe/gsc: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 06/23] drm/xe/gt: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 07/23] drm/xe/xe_gt_idle: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 08/23] drm/xe/devcoredump: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 09/23] drm/xe/tests/mocs: Update xe_force_wake_get() return handling Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 10/23] drm/xe/mocs: Update handling of xe_force_wake_get return Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 11/23] drm/xe/xe_drm_client: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 12/23] drm/xe/xe_gt_debugfs: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 13/23] drm/xe/guc: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 14/23] drm/xe/huc: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 15/23] drm/xe/oa: Handle force_wake_get failure in xe_oa_stream_init() Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 16/23] drm/xe/pat: Update handling of xe_force_wake_get return Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 17/23] drm/xe/gt_tlb_invalidation_ggtt: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 18/23] drm/xe/xe_reg_sr: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 19/23] drm/xe/query: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:16 ` [PATCH v2 20/23] drm/xe/vram: " Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:16 ` [PATCH v2 21/23] drm/xe: forcewake debugfs open fails on xe_forcewake_get failure Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:16 ` [PATCH v2 22/23] drm/xe: Ensure __must_check for xe_force_wake_get() return Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-12 19:16 ` [PATCH v2 23/23] drm/xe: Change return type to void for xe_force_wake_put Himal Prasad Ghimiray
2024-09-13 4:09 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-13 10:24 ` Michal Wajdeczko
2024-09-13 13:26 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-13 13:31 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-16 18:42 ` Nilawar, Badal
2024-09-17 4:48 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-17 4:52 ` Nilawar, Badal
2024-09-17 5:21 ` Nilawar, Badal
2024-09-17 5:24 ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2024-09-12 19:24 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Fix xe_force_wake_get() failure handling (rev2) Patchwork
2024-09-12 19:24 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2024-09-12 19:25 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2024-09-12 19:37 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-09-12 19:39 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-09-12 19:41 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-09-12 19:58 ` ✗ CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2024-09-13 12:01 ` ✗ CI.FULL: " 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=7d1e6ccc-3dc1-4cdc-a30e-f0f1b0f12193@intel.com \
--to=badal.nilawar@intel.com \
--cc=himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
--cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
--cc=nirmoy.das@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@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