[PATCH] drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

[PATCH] drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

[Chris Wilson]

After we call dma_fence_signal(), confirm that the request was indeed
complete.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
index ce16003ef048..633c18785c1e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
@@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static void notify_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
 
 	if (rq) {
 		dma_fence_signal(&rq->fence);
+		GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(rq));
 		i915_request_put(rq);
 	}
 
-- 
2.16.2

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 05/03/2018 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> After we call dma_fence_signal(), confirm that the request was indeed
> complete.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 1 +
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index ce16003ef048..633c18785c1e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static void notify_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>   
>   	if (rq) {
>   		dma_fence_signal(&rq->fence);
> +		GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(rq));
>   		i915_request_put(rq);
>   	}
>   
> 

What's the motivation? There is a i915_seqno_passed check a few lines 
above. So there would have to be a confusion in internal breadcrumbs 
state for this to be possible. In which case I'd rather put the assert 
in breadcrumbs code. For instance in intel_wait_check_request, asserting 
that the seqno in wait matches the seqno in wait->request.

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-05 11:12:45)
> 
> On 05/03/2018 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > After we call dma_fence_signal(), confirm that the request was indeed
> > complete.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 1 +
> >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > index ce16003ef048..633c18785c1e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static void notify_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >   
> >       if (rq) {
> >               dma_fence_signal(&rq->fence);
> > +             GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(rq));
> >               i915_request_put(rq);
> >       }
> >   
> > 
> 
> What's the motivation? There is a i915_seqno_passed check a few lines 

The seqno check is on wait.seqno, this is to confirm it all ties
together with the request and our preemption avoidance is solid. The
motivation was the bug in the signaler along the same lines.

> above. So there would have to be a confusion in internal breadcrumbs 
> state for this to be possible. In which case I'd rather put the assert 
> in breadcrumbs code. For instance in intel_wait_check_request, asserting 
> that the seqno in wait matches the seqno in wait->request.

The entire point of that check is to say when they don't match so that
we know when the request was unsubmitted during the wait.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/39369/
State : success

== Summary ==

Series 39369v1 drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/39369/revisions/1/mbox/

---- Known issues:

Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
        Subgroup suspend-read-crc-pipe-b:
                pass       -> INCOMPLETE (fi-snb-2520m) fdo#103713

fdo#103713 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103713

fi-bdw-5557u     total:288  pass:267  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:21  time:417s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm    total:288  pass:264  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:423s
fi-blb-e6850     total:288  pass:223  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:64  time:370s
fi-bsw-n3050     total:288  pass:242  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:46  time:484s
fi-bwr-2160      total:288  pass:183  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:105 time:278s
fi-bxt-dsi       total:288  pass:258  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:30  time:478s
fi-bxt-j4205     total:288  pass:259  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:483s
fi-byt-j1900     total:288  pass:253  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:35  time:463s
fi-byt-n2820     total:288  pass:249  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:39  time:458s
fi-cfl-8700k     total:288  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:393s
fi-cfl-s2        total:288  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:26  time:569s
fi-cnl-y3        total:288  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:26  time:574s
fi-elk-e7500     total:288  pass:229  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:59  time:416s
fi-gdg-551       total:288  pass:179  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:108 time:289s
fi-glk-1         total:288  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:504s
fi-hsw-4770      total:288  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:385s
fi-ilk-650       total:288  pass:228  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:60  time:407s
fi-ivb-3520m     total:288  pass:259  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:455s
fi-ivb-3770      total:288  pass:255  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:33  time:413s
fi-kbl-7500u     total:288  pass:263  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:450s
fi-kbl-7560u     total:288  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:19  time:489s
fi-kbl-7567u     total:288  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:451s
fi-kbl-r         total:288  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:494s
fi-pnv-d510      total:288  pass:222  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:65  time:583s
fi-skl-6260u     total:288  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:426s
fi-skl-6600u     total:288  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:498s
fi-skl-6700hq    total:288  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:26  time:521s
fi-skl-6700k2    total:288  pass:264  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:485s
fi-skl-6770hq    total:288  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:479s
fi-skl-guc       total:288  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:407s
fi-skl-gvtdvm    total:288  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23  time:428s
fi-snb-2520m     total:245  pass:211  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:33 
fi-snb-2600      total:288  pass:248  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:40  time:392s

2501aa775c7abc194aa2fbf93475cd1898aaa710 drm-tip: 2018y-03m-05d-10h-55m-37s UTC integration manifest
dae77e6c5a88 drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_8228/issues.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 05/03/2018 11:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-05 11:12:45)
>>
>> On 05/03/2018 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> After we call dma_fence_signal(), confirm that the request was indeed
>>> complete.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 1 +
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> index ce16003ef048..633c18785c1e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static void notify_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>>>    
>>>        if (rq) {
>>>                dma_fence_signal(&rq->fence);
>>> +             GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(rq));
>>>                i915_request_put(rq);
>>>        }
>>>    
>>>
>>
>> What's the motivation? There is a i915_seqno_passed check a few lines
> 
> The seqno check is on wait.seqno, this is to confirm it all ties
> together with the request and our preemption avoidance is solid. The
> motivation was the bug in the signaler along the same lines.
> 
>> above. So there would have to be a confusion in internal breadcrumbs
>> state for this to be possible. In which case I'd rather put the assert
>> in breadcrumbs code. For instance in intel_wait_check_request, asserting
>> that the seqno in wait matches the seqno in wait->request.
> 
> The entire point of that check is to say when they don't match so that
> we know when the request was unsubmitted during the wait.

Ok my suggesting wasn't really appropriate. I just disliked a bit open 
coding the assert. No smart and worthwhile suggestions to improve it. 
i915_request_signal came to mind to wrap the assert and dma_fence_signal 
but I dont see sufficient call sites.

Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>

Regards,

Tvrtko


_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

[Patchwork]

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/39369/
State : success

== Summary ==

---- Known issues:

Test kms_chv_cursor_fail:
        Subgroup pipe-b-128x128-top-edge:
                dmesg-warn -> PASS       (shard-snb) fdo#105185 +1
        Subgroup pipe-c-128x128-bottom-edge:
                pass       -> FAIL       (shard-apl) fdo#104671
Test kms_flip:
        Subgroup 2x-plain-flip-fb-recreate:
                pass       -> FAIL       (shard-hsw) fdo#100368
Test kms_frontbuffer_tracking:
        Subgroup basic:
                fail       -> PASS       (shard-apl) fdo#103167
        Subgroup fbc-suspend:
                skip       -> PASS       (shard-hsw) fdo#103540
Test kms_vblank:
        Subgroup pipe-b-ts-continuation-dpms-suspend:
                pass       -> INCOMPLETE (shard-hsw) fdo#105054
        Subgroup pipe-c-accuracy-idle:
                pass       -> FAIL       (shard-hsw) fdo#102583

fdo#105185 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105185
fdo#104671 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104671
fdo#100368 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100368
fdo#103167 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103167
fdo#103540 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103540
fdo#105054 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105054
fdo#102583 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102583

shard-apl        total:3452 pass:1813 dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:8   skip:1629 time:11714s
shard-hsw        total:3417 pass:1745 dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:3   skip:1666 time:11409s
shard-snb        total:3468 pass:1365 dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:2101 time:7115s
Blacklisted hosts:
shard-kbl        total:3270 pass:1810 dwarn:33  dfail:0   fail:7   skip:1416 time:8184s

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_8228/shards.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Assert that the request is indeed complete when signaled from irq

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-05 12:25:21)
> 
> On 05/03/2018 11:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-03-05 11:12:45)
> >>
> >> On 05/03/2018 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> After we call dma_fence_signal(), confirm that the request was indeed
> >>> complete.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 1 +
> >>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>> index ce16003ef048..633c18785c1e 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>> @@ -1123,6 +1123,7 @@ static void notify_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >>>    
> >>>        if (rq) {
> >>>                dma_fence_signal(&rq->fence);
> >>> +             GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(rq));
> >>>                i915_request_put(rq);
> >>>        }
> >>>    
> >>>
> >>
> >> What's the motivation? There is a i915_seqno_passed check a few lines
> > 
> > The seqno check is on wait.seqno, this is to confirm it all ties
> > together with the request and our preemption avoidance is solid. The
> > motivation was the bug in the signaler along the same lines.
> > 
> >> above. So there would have to be a confusion in internal breadcrumbs
> >> state for this to be possible. In which case I'd rather put the assert
> >> in breadcrumbs code. For instance in intel_wait_check_request, asserting
> >> that the seqno in wait matches the seqno in wait->request.
> > 
> > The entire point of that check is to say when they don't match so that
> > we know when the request was unsubmitted during the wait.
> 
> Ok my suggesting wasn't really appropriate. I just disliked a bit open 
> coding the assert. No smart and worthwhile suggestions to improve it. 
> i915_request_signal came to mind to wrap the assert and dma_fence_signal 
> but I dont see sufficient call sites.

i915_request_signal() isn't a bad suggestion. We don't want many
dma_fence_signal() callsites but on all occasions the assertion should
hold true.

I'll try to remember for next time I'm passing.

> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>

Thanks and pushed,
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx