From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Raag Jadav" <raag.jadav@intel.com>, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 9/9] drm/xe/ras: Move xe_ras_process_errors() to xe_ras
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2026 04:00:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-175280@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261017034842.67054-10-raag.jadav@intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] drm/xe/ras: early wedging in xe_ras_init() breaks xe_gt_init() and uevent
- [Medium] drm/xe/ras: xe_ras_init() skips xe_ras_process_errors() when !has_sysctrl
--
commit 28828164c7b9a221bd760c7ef57cdad077ccda45
Author: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
drm/xe/ras: Move xe_ras_process_errors() to xe_ras
This commit moves the boot-time call to xe_ras_process_errors() from the end
of xe_device_probe() back into xe_ras_init().
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> index 0072bb4cc5dfe..db3cbc186a514 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c
> @@ -1212,6 +1212,13 @@ int xe_ras_init(struct xe_device *xe)
> get_offline_list(xe);
> get_offline_queue(xe);
>
> + /*
> + * During probe, process and log any errors detected by firmware while the driver was not
> + * loaded. Critical errors such as Punit and CSC are reported through Pcode init failure,
> + * causing the driver to enter survivability mode.
> + */
> + xe_ras_process_errors(xe);
[Severity: High]
Can calling xe_ras_process_errors() inside xe_ras_init() break driver probe
and DRM uevent generation when an error wedges the device?
In xe_device_probe(), xe_ras_init() runs before xe_gt_init() and
drm_dev_register():
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c:xe_device_probe() {
...
err = xe_ras_init(xe);
if (err)
return err;
...
for_each_gt(gt, xe, id) {
err = xe_gt_init(gt);
if (err)
return err;
}
...
err = drm_dev_register(&xe->drm, 0);
...
}
When xe_ras_process_errors() detects a boot-time SoC CSC firmware error
(hec_fw_error) or Punit IEH error (XE_RAS_SOC_IEH_PUNIT) in
handle_soc_internal_errors(), or when xe_fault_wedge_cold_reset() triggers,
it calls xe_survivability_mode_runtime_enable() or punit_error_handler(),
both of which invoke xe_wedge_declare().
In xe_wedge_declare(), it sets xe->wedged.flag = 1, iterates initialized GTs,
and schedules wedge_work():
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wedge.c:xe_wedge_declare() {
if (atomic_xchg(&xe->wedged.flag, 1))
return;
...
for_each_initialized_gt(gt, xe, id)
xe_gt_wedge_declare(gt);
...
schedule_work(&xe->wedged.work);
}
Because xe_gt_init() has not run yet, gt->initialized is still false for all
GTs, so xe_gt_wedge_declare() is skipped. Then, when xe_device_probe() calls
xe_gt_init() -> gt_init_with_all_forcewake() -> xe_uc_load_hw(), subsequent
GuC CT messages in xe_gt_record_default_lrcs(), xe_guc_post_load_init(),
xe_guc_pc_start(), and xe_guc_rc_enable() fail in __guc_ct_send_locked():
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c:__guc_ct_send_locked() {
if (xe_wedged(ct_to_xe(ct))) {
ret = -ENOTRECOVERABLE;
goto out;
}
...
}
This causes xe_gt_init() and xe_device_probe() to abort with -ETIME or
-ENOTRECOVERABLE, tearing down the device and removing the runtime
survivability sysfs attributes instead of keeping the device bound in a
wedged state.
In addition, wedge_work() calls drm_dev_wedged_event(&xe->drm, ...) before
drm_dev_register() has called device_add() on xe->drm.primary->kdev, emitting
KOBJ_CHANGE on an unregistered kobject prior to KOBJ_ADD. Commit 20bc4883c7c0
("drm/xe/ras: Fix boot-time ras error processing") noted that both wedged
cleanup hooks and DRM device registration are required before
xe_ras_process_errors() can declare the device wedged.
[Severity: Medium]
Also in xe_ras_init(), does placing xe_ras_process_errors() after the
!xe->info.has_sysctrl check prevent cold-reset wedge fault injection on
platforms without a system controller?
In xe_ras_process_errors(), xe_fault_wedge_cold_reset() is checked before
!xe->info.has_sysctrl:
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c:xe_ras_process_errors() {
if (xe_fault_wedge_cold_reset()) {
xe_err(xe, "[RAS]: cold-reset wedge injected\n");
punit_error_handler(xe);
return XE_RAS_RECOVERY_ACTION_DISCONNECT;
}
if (!xe->info.has_sysctrl)
return XE_RAS_RECOVERY_ACTION_RESET;
...
}
However, xe_ras_init() returns early when !xe->info.has_sysctrl:
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ras.c:xe_ras_init() {
xe_drm_ras_init(xe);
if (!xe->info.has_sysctrl)
return 0;
...
xe_ras_process_errors(xe);
}
With xe_ras_process_errors() moved here from xe_device_probe(),
xe_fault_wedge_cold_reset() is never reached during probe when
xe->info.has_sysctrl is false.
> +
> ret = devm_device_add_group(xe->drm.dev, &gpu_health_group);
> if (ret)
> xe_err(xe, "Failed to create GPU health sysfs, err=%d\n", ret);
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261017034842.67054-1-raag.jadav@intel.com?part=9
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-17 4:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-17 3:47 [PATCH v11 0/9] Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 1/9] drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 4:24 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 2/9] drm/xe: Drop xe_device_set_wedged_method() Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 3/9] drm/xe/hw_error: Guard csc_hw_error_work() with runtime PM Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 4/9] drm/xe: Move xe_device_wedged_fini() registration to xe_device_probe_early() Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 5/9] drm/xe: Make xe_device_declare_wedged() IRQ safe Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 6/9] drm/xe/pci_error: Flush GT wedge worker before bus reset Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 7/9] drm/xe/amc: Guard xe_amc_work() with runtime PM Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 8/9] drm/xe: Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 3:47 ` [PATCH v11 9/9] drm/xe/ras: Move xe_ras_process_errors() to xe_ras Raag Jadav
2026-10-17 4:00 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-17 4:05 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Introduce xe_wedge (rev10) Patchwork
2026-10-17 4:07 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-10-17 4:46 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-10-17 6:34 ` ✓ 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=sashiko-outbox-175280@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=raag.jadav@intel.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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