From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/xe/guc: wait killably for suspend and ban queue on timeout
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 13:40:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alAHUXLtmyjcuQbq@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alAGPmGuKrIXN23Z@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com>
On Thu, Jul 09, 2026 at 01:36:14PM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 10:07:31PM -0700, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
> > Harden guc_exec_queue_suspend_wait():
> >
> > - Wait killably rather than interruptibly. Once a suspend has been
> > issued it must be waited to completion (or timeout); an arbitrary
> > non-fatal signal must not abandon an in-flight suspend, otherwise the
> > wait reports a spurious failure while the suspend is still pending.
> > Only a fatal signal aborts, in which case the dying task tears the
> > queue down (clearing suspend_pending), so no stuck state persists.
> >
> > - On timeout, ban the queue and trigger cleanup rather than leaving it
> > suspended forever. Clearing suspend_pending via __suspend_fence_signal()
> > lets a subsequent resume() proceed without tripping the
> > !suspend_pending assert.
> >
> > v2: Add comment about -ERESTARTSYS in suspend_wait
> >
>
> This doesn't actually help per my comments in patch #2 given sigkill on
> one process doesn't mean another processes queues are being torn down.
>
> I'd drop this patch as I dont see this buying us anything.
>
> Matt
>
Sorry typing too fast... More below.
> > Assisted-by: Github-Copilot:Claude-opus-4.8
> > Signed-off-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> > index 9458bf477fa6..3d9bdc22c89f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> > @@ -2195,22 +2195,41 @@ static int guc_exec_queue_suspend_wait(struct xe_exec_queue *q)
> > xe_guc_read_stopped(guc))
> >
> > retry:
> > + /*
> > + * Wait killably rather than interruptibly: once a suspend has been
> > + * issued it must be waited to completion (or timeout), otherwise an
> > + * arbitrary (non-fatal) signal would abandon an in-flight suspend and
> > + * the wait would report a spurious failure while suspend_pending is
> > + * still set. Only a fatal signal aborts here; in that case the dying
> > + * task tears the queue down (clearing suspend_pending), so no stuck
> > + * state persists.
> > + */
> > if (IS_SRIOV_VF(xe))
> > - ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(guc->ct.wq, WAIT_COND ||
> > - vf_recovery(guc),
> > - HZ * 5);
> > + ret = wait_event_killable_timeout(guc->ct.wq, WAIT_COND ||
> > + vf_recovery(guc), HZ * 5);
> > else
> > - ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(q->guc->suspend_wait,
> > - WAIT_COND, HZ * 5);
> > + ret = wait_event_killable_timeout(q->guc->suspend_wait,
> > + WAIT_COND, HZ * 5);
Drop this part.
> >
> > if (vf_recovery(guc) && !xe_device_wedged((guc_to_xe(guc))))
> > return -EAGAIN;
> >
> > if (!ret) {
> > xe_gt_warn(guc_to_gt(guc),
> > - "Suspend fence, guc_id=%d, failed to respond",
> > + "Suspend fence, guc_id=%d, failed to respond, banning queue",
> > q->guc->id);
> > - /* XXX: Trigger GT reset? */
> > + /*
> > + * The GuC failed to respond to the suspend within the timeout.
> > + * This is not recoverable for this context, so ban it rather
> > + * than leave it suspended forever (unmarked). Clearing
> > + * suspend_pending lets a subsequent resume() proceed without
> > + * tripping the !suspend_pending assert (the RESUME message is
> > + * dropped for a banned queue), and triggering cleanup tears the
> > + * context down.
> > + */
> > + set_exec_queue_banned(q);
> > + __suspend_fence_signal(q);
> > + xe_guc_exec_queue_trigger_cleanup(q);
This part mostly looks good but __suspend_fence_signal should actually
be signaled in the TDR after queue is off the hardware as without that
we could get a memory corruption signaling suspend fence early while the
hardware could possibly be touching memory.
guc_exec_queue_kill has the same bug which should also be fixed.
Matt
> > return -ETIME;
> > } else if (IS_SRIOV_VF(xe) && !WAIT_COND) {
> > /* Corner case on RESFIX DONE where vf_recovery() changes */
> > @@ -2219,6 +2238,12 @@ static int guc_exec_queue_suspend_wait(struct xe_exec_queue *q)
> >
> > #undef WAIT_COND
> >
> > + /*
> > + * ret < 0 (-ERESTARTSYS): aborted by a fatal signal. The queue is not
> > + * banned - the failure is in the waiter, not the queue. The suspend is
> > + * not confirmed complete, so suspend_pending may still be set; callers
> > + * must not resume() on this error without re-confirming the suspend.
> > + */
> > return ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.43.0
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-09 20:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-01 5:07 [PATCH v2 0/5] drm/xe: balance exec queue suspend/resume Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-07-01 5:07 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] drm/xe: only resume exec queues that were actually suspended Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-07-09 20:33 ` Matthew Brost
2026-07-01 5:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] drm/xe/hw_engine_group: propagate suspend failures during mode switch Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-07-09 20:20 ` Matthew Brost
2026-07-10 4:13 ` Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-07-10 18:23 ` Matthew Brost
2026-07-01 5:07 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] drm/xe/guc: wait killably for suspend and ban queue on timeout Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-07-09 20:36 ` Matthew Brost
2026-07-09 20:40 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2026-07-10 4:30 ` Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-07-10 5:40 ` Matthew Brost
2026-07-01 5:07 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] drm/xe/guc: Add suspend refcount to exec queue ops Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-07-09 20:41 ` Matthew Brost
2026-07-01 5:07 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] drm/xe/multi_queue: preempt primary on queue group suspend Niranjana Vishwanathapura
2026-07-09 20:43 ` Matthew Brost
2026-07-01 5:14 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for drm/xe: balance exec queue suspend/resume (rev4) Patchwork
2026-07-01 5:15 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-07-01 6:06 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-07-01 21:17 ` ✓ Xe.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=alAHUXLtmyjcuQbq@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.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