Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>,
	<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <riana.tauro@intel.com>,
	<lukasz.laguna@intel.com>, <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>,
	<matthew.brost@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2026 21:12:13 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <asmQ7RRHQ8GtK2E4@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ap62ydY-_7AYdxPs@black.igk.intel.com>

On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 03:06:17PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 02:02:59PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> > On 9/7/2026 10:34 AM, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > Currently, xe_gt_declare_wedged() stops GuC CT and initiates exec queue
> > > teardown synchronously. This can result in tdr timeout in cases where
> > > the device is declared wedged while jobs are still in-flight.
> > > 
> > > Introduce a worker for GT specific wedge handling and queue the teardown
> > > on GT ordered workqueue, so we don't disrupt the scheduler while jobs
> > > are still in-flight.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: c9474b726b93 ("drm/xe: Wedge the entire device")
> > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > v2: Split fixes into separate patches (Rodrigo, Michal)
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c       | 17 +++++++++++++++--
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_types.h |  6 ++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> > > index 478e047031f4..200e34331c19 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt.c
> > > @@ -173,6 +173,7 @@ static void xe_gt_enable_comp_1wcoh(struct xe_gt *gt)
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  static void gt_reset_worker(struct work_struct *w);
> > > +static void gt_wedge_worker(struct work_struct *w);
> > >  
> > >  static int emit_job_sync(struct xe_exec_queue *q, struct xe_bb *bb,
> > >  			 long timeout_jiffies, bool force_reset)
> > > @@ -704,6 +705,8 @@ static void xe_gt_fini(void *arg)
> > >  	struct xe_gt *gt = arg;
> > >  	int i;
> > >  
> > > +	disable_work_sync(&gt->wedge.worker);
> > > +
> > >  	if (disable_work_sync(&gt->reset.worker))
> > >  		/*
> > >  		 * If gt_reset_worker was halted from executing, take care of
> > > @@ -723,6 +726,7 @@ int xe_gt_init(struct xe_gt *gt)
> > >  	int i;
> > >  
> > >  	INIT_WORK(&gt->reset.worker, gt_reset_worker);
> > > +	INIT_WORK(&gt->wedge.worker, gt_wedge_worker);
> > 
> > hmm, shouldn't this be done in xe_gt_alloc() ?
> 
> The worker is touching hardware, which I'm assuming shouldn't be done
> before xe_device_probe()?
> 
> Raag
> 
> > as xe_gt_init_early() seems to be doing something else and much later
> > 
> > >  
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < XE_ENGINE_CLASS_MAX; ++i) {
> > >  		gt->ring_ops[i] = xe_ring_ops_get(gt, i);
> > > @@ -1005,6 +1009,14 @@ void xe_gt_reset_async(struct xe_gt *gt)
> > >  		xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static void gt_wedge_worker(struct work_struct *w)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct xe_gt *gt = container_of(w, typeof(*gt), wedge.worker);
> > > +
> > > +	xe_uc_declare_wedged(&gt->uc);
> > > +	xe_tlb_inval_reset(&gt->tlb_inval);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  void xe_gt_suspend_prepare(struct xe_gt *gt)
> > >  {
> > >  	xe_uc_suspend_prepare(&gt->uc);
> > > @@ -1195,6 +1207,7 @@ void xe_gt_declare_wedged(struct xe_gt *gt)
> > >  {
> > >  	xe_gt_assert(gt, gt_to_xe(gt)->wedged.mode);
> > >  
> > > -	xe_uc_declare_wedged(&gt->uc);
> > > -	xe_tlb_inval_reset(&gt->tlb_inval);
> > > +	/* Prevent queueing uninitialized worker if hit during probe */

Perhaps this comment itself proves Michal's point?!

I believe it would be cleaner if this would be per device and not per_gt
and already INIT worker inside device_early_probe...

> > > +	if (gt->wedge.worker.func)
> > > +		queue_work(gt->ordered_wq, &gt->wedge.worker);

This can race with other wedge places now, like:
prepare_device_for_reset()

we should perhaps flush all workers there or whenever
we are in the sync path?! or perhaps move all to the
queue?

> > >  }
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_types.h
> > > index 628911346455..b11ac52b0ab7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_types.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_types.h
> > > @@ -233,6 +233,12 @@ struct xe_gt {
> > >  		struct work_struct worker;
> > >  	} reset;
> > >  
> > > +	/** @wedge: state for GT wedge */
> > > +	struct {
> > > +		/** @wedge.worker: worker for GT wedge to be done async */
> > > +		struct work_struct worker;
> > > +	} wedge;
> > > +
> > >  	/** @tlb_inval: TLB invalidation state */
> > >  	struct xe_tlb_inval tlb_inval;
> > >  
> > 

  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-10  1:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-07  8:34 [PATCH v3 0/5] Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-09-07  8:34 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging Raag Jadav
2026-09-07  8:50   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-07 12:02   ` Michal Wajdeczko
2026-09-07 13:06     ` Raag Jadav
2026-10-10  1:12       ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2026-10-10  6:54         ` Raag Jadav
2026-09-07  8:34 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] drm/xe: Move xe_device_wedged_fini() registration to xe_device_probe_early() Raag Jadav
2026-09-07  8:54   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-10  1:14   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2026-09-07  8:34 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] drm/xe: Make xe_device_declare_wedged() IRQ safe Raag Jadav
2026-10-10  1:16   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2026-09-07  8:34 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] drm/xe: Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-10  1:23   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2026-10-10  7:00     ` Raag Jadav
2026-09-07  8:34 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] drm/xe/ras: Move xe_ras_process_errors() to xe_ras Raag Jadav
2026-09-07  8:55   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-10  1:24   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2026-09-07  9:35 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Introduce xe_wedge (rev2) Patchwork
2026-09-07  9:37 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-09-07 10:26 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-09-07 11:39 ` ✓ 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=asmQ7RRHQ8GtK2E4@intel.com \
    --to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=lukasz.laguna@intel.com \
    --cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
    --cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
    --cc=michal.wajdeczko@intel.com \
    --cc=raag.jadav@intel.com \
    --cc=riana.tauro@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