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(>->wedge.worker);
> > > +
> > > if (disable_work_sync(>->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(>->reset.worker, gt_reset_worker);
> > > + INIT_WORK(>->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(>->uc);
> > > + xe_tlb_inval_reset(>->tlb_inval);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > void xe_gt_suspend_prepare(struct xe_gt *gt)
> > > {
> > > xe_uc_suspend_prepare(>->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(>->uc);
> > > - xe_tlb_inval_reset(>->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, >->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;
> > >
> >
next prev parent 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