On 2023-11-29 15:49, Alex Deucher wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 3:10 PM Alex Deucher wrote: >> >> Actually I think I see the problem. I'll try and send out a patch >> later today to test. > > Does the attached patch fix it? Thanks for the patch, Alex. Is it possible for AMD to also reproduce this issue and test this patch on a Navi23 system? > From 96e75b5218f7a124eafa53853681eef8fe567ab8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Alex Deucher > Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 15:44:25 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: fix buffer funcs setting order on suspend > > We need to make disable this after the last eviction "make disable" --> "disable" > call, but before we disable the SDMA IP. > > Fixes: b70438004a14 ("drm/amdgpu: move buffer funcs setting up a level") > Link: https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/amd-gfx/2023-November/101197.html Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/87edgv4x3i.fsf@vps.thesusis.net Let's link the start of the thread. Regards, Luben > Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher > Cc: Phillip Susi > Cc: Luben Tuikov > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c > index b5edf40b5d03..78553e027db4 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c > @@ -4531,8 +4531,6 @@ int amdgpu_device_suspend(struct drm_device *dev, bool fbcon) > > amdgpu_ras_suspend(adev); > > - amdgpu_ttm_set_buffer_funcs_status(adev, false); > - > amdgpu_device_ip_suspend_phase1(adev); > > if (!adev->in_s0ix) > @@ -4542,6 +4540,8 @@ int amdgpu_device_suspend(struct drm_device *dev, bool fbcon) > if (r) > return r; > > + amdgpu_ttm_set_buffer_funcs_status(adev, false); > + > amdgpu_fence_driver_hw_fini(adev); > > amdgpu_device_ip_suspend_phase2(adev); > > Alex > >> >> Alex >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:52 PM Alex Deucher wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:41 AM Luben Tuikov wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2023-11-29 10:22, Alex Deucher wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:50 AM Alex Deucher wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alex Deucher writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In that case those are the already known problems with the scheduler >>>>>>>>>>> changes, aren't they? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Those changes went into 6.7 though, not 6.6 AFAIK. Maybe I'm >>>>>>>>>> misunderstanding what the original report was actually testing. If it >>>>>>>>>> was 6.7, then try reverting: >>>>>>>>>> 56e449603f0ac580700621a356d35d5716a62ce5 >>>>>>>>>> b70438004a14f4d0f9890b3297cd66248728546c >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At some point it was suggested that I file a gitlab issue, but I took >>>>>>>>> this to mean it was already known and being worked on. -rc3 came out >>>>>>>>> today and still has the problem. Is there a known issue I could track? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At this point, unless there are any objections, I think we should just >>>>>>>> revert the two patches >>>>>>> Uhm, no. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why "the two" patches? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This email, part of this thread, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87r0kircdo.fsf@vps.thesusis.net/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> clearly states that reverting *only* this commit, >>>>>>> 56e449603f0ac5 drm/sched: Convert the GPU scheduler to variable number of run-queues >>>>>>> *does not* mitigate the failed suspend. (Furthermore, this commit doesn't really change >>>>>>> anything operational, other than using an allocated array, instead of a static one, in DRM, >>>>>>> while the 2nd patch is solely contained within the amdgpu driver code.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Leaving us with only this change, >>>>>>> b70438004a14f4 drm/amdgpu: move buffer funcs setting up a level >>>>>>> to be at fault, as the kernel log attached in the linked email above shows. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The conclusion is that only b70438004a14f4 needs reverting. >>>>>> >>>>>> b70438004a14f4 was a fix for 56e449603f0ac5. Without b70438004a14f4, >>>>>> 56e449603f0ac5 breaks amdgpu. >>>>> >>>>> We can try and re-enable it in the next kernel. I'm just not sure >>>>> we'll be able to fix this in time for 6.7 with the holidays and all >>>>> and I don't want to cause a lot of scheduler churn at the end of the >>>>> 6.7 cycle if we hold off and try and fix it. Reverting seems like the >>>>> best short term solution. >>>> >>>> A lot of subsequent code has come in since commit 56e449603f0ac5, as it opened >>>> the opportunity for a 1-to-1 relationship between an entity and a scheduler. >>>> (Should've always been the case, from the outset. Not sure why it was coded as >>>> a fixed-size array.) >>>> >>>> Given that commit 56e449603f0ac5 has nothing to do with amdgpu, and the problem >>>> is wholly contained in amdgpu, and no other driver has this problem, there is >>>> no reason to have to "churn", i.e. go back and forth in DRM, only to cover up >>>> an init bug in amdgpu. See the response I just sent in @this thread: >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/05007cb0-871e-4dc7-af58-1351f4ba43e2@gmail.com >>>> >>>> And it's not like this issue is unknown. I first posted about it on 2023-10-16. >>>> >>>> Ideally, amdgpu would just fix their init code. >>> >>> You can't make changes to core code that break other drivers. >>> Arguably 56e449603f0ac5 should not have gone in in the first place if >>> it broke amdgpu. b70438004a14f4 was the code to fix amdgpu's init >>> code, but as a side effect it seems to have broken suspend for some >>> users. >>> >>> Alex