From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> To: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_workarounds: Verify regs directly Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 11:24:49 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <155912548956.13891.16600713179238619259@skylake-alporthouse-com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87ef4ho9bh.fsf@gaia.fi.intel.com> Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-05-29 11:15:46) > Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes: > > > It seems like the HW validator is getting better at preventing our > > snooping of system registers from non-privileged batches! If we can't > > use SRM, let's probe the register directly through mmio, making sure we > > have the context spinning on the GPU first. > > > > v2: Hold forcewake just in case the spinning batch isn't enough to > > justify our register access. > > > > If I recall correctly, either of them separately didn't > work. And there was delay after grabbing the fw before > the register contents appeared. Don't remember the gen tho. That would be a kernel bug / HW bug. Either we fail in our ack sequence (maybe let the read overtake the fw ack or something equally impossible), or the HW fails in its. If you can think of a way of spotting it, add it to selftests/intel_uncore -- it's exactly the type of test we need in bring up, verifying our mmio is accurate. > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110544 > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com> > > --- > > tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c | 88 +++++++----------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c b/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c > > index 44e3dce8a..2767b04d7 100644 > > --- a/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c > > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c > > @@ -80,70 +80,27 @@ static bool write_only(const uint32_t addr) > > return false; > > } > > > > -#define MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM (0x24 << 23) > > - > > -static int workaround_fail_count(int fd, uint32_t ctx) > > +static int workaround_fail_count(int i915, uint32_t ctx) > > { > > - struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2]; > > - struct drm_i915_gem_relocation_entry *reloc; > > - struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf; > > - uint32_t result_sz, batch_sz; > > - uint32_t *base, *out; > > - int fail_count = 0; > > - > > - reloc = calloc(num_wa_regs, sizeof(*reloc)); > > - igt_assert(reloc); > > - > > - result_sz = 4 * num_wa_regs; > > - result_sz = PAGE_ALIGN(result_sz); > > - > > - batch_sz = 16 * num_wa_regs + 4; > > - batch_sz = PAGE_ALIGN(batch_sz); > > - > > - memset(obj, 0, sizeof(obj)); > > - obj[0].handle = gem_create(fd, result_sz); > > - gem_set_caching(fd, obj[0].handle, I915_CACHING_CACHED); > > - obj[1].handle = gem_create(fd, batch_sz); > > - obj[1].relocs_ptr = to_user_pointer(reloc); > > - obj[1].relocation_count = num_wa_regs; > > - > > - out = base = gem_mmap__cpu(fd, obj[1].handle, 0, batch_sz, PROT_WRITE); > > - for (int i = 0; i < num_wa_regs; i++) { > > - *out++ = MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM | ((gen >= 8 ? 4 : 2) - 2); > > - *out++ = wa_regs[i].addr; > > - reloc[i].target_handle = obj[0].handle; > > - reloc[i].offset = (out - base) * sizeof(*out); > > - reloc[i].delta = i * sizeof(uint32_t); > > - reloc[i].read_domains = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_INSTRUCTION; > > - reloc[i].write_domain = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_INSTRUCTION; > > - *out++ = reloc[i].delta; > > - if (gen >= 8) > > - *out++ = 0; > > - } > > - *out++ = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END; > > - munmap(base, batch_sz); > > + igt_spin_t *spin; > > + int fw, fail = 0; > > > > - memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf)); > > - execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj); > > - execbuf.buffer_count = 2; > > - execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx; > > - gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); > > + spin = igt_spin_new(i915, .ctx = ctx, .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN); > > + igt_spin_busywait_until_started(spin); > > > > - gem_set_domain(fd, obj[0].handle, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU, 0); > > - > > - igt_debug("Address\tval\t\tmask\t\tread\t\tresult\n"); > > - > > - out = gem_mmap__cpu(fd, obj[0].handle, 0, result_sz, PROT_READ); > > + fw = igt_open_forcewake_handle(i915); > > assert that it went fine? Do we always expect the debugfs to be present? Do we strictly need it? igt_debug if it isn't present and correlate that to a fail. > Perhaps both will now do the trick. But if it fails > get the forcewake before spinner so you get more delay. Nah, I vote that in that case forcewake is broken and needs a kernel fix, as we don't have any such delay when using I915_READ(). -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> To: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_workarounds: Verify regs directly Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 11:24:49 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <155912548956.13891.16600713179238619259@skylake-alporthouse-com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87ef4ho9bh.fsf@gaia.fi.intel.com> Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-05-29 11:15:46) > Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes: > > > It seems like the HW validator is getting better at preventing our > > snooping of system registers from non-privileged batches! If we can't > > use SRM, let's probe the register directly through mmio, making sure we > > have the context spinning on the GPU first. > > > > v2: Hold forcewake just in case the spinning batch isn't enough to > > justify our register access. > > > > If I recall correctly, either of them separately didn't > work. And there was delay after grabbing the fw before > the register contents appeared. Don't remember the gen tho. That would be a kernel bug / HW bug. Either we fail in our ack sequence (maybe let the read overtake the fw ack or something equally impossible), or the HW fails in its. If you can think of a way of spotting it, add it to selftests/intel_uncore -- it's exactly the type of test we need in bring up, verifying our mmio is accurate. > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110544 > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com> > > --- > > tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c | 88 +++++++----------------------------- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c b/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c > > index 44e3dce8a..2767b04d7 100644 > > --- a/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c > > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_workarounds.c > > @@ -80,70 +80,27 @@ static bool write_only(const uint32_t addr) > > return false; > > } > > > > -#define MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM (0x24 << 23) > > - > > -static int workaround_fail_count(int fd, uint32_t ctx) > > +static int workaround_fail_count(int i915, uint32_t ctx) > > { > > - struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 obj[2]; > > - struct drm_i915_gem_relocation_entry *reloc; > > - struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf; > > - uint32_t result_sz, batch_sz; > > - uint32_t *base, *out; > > - int fail_count = 0; > > - > > - reloc = calloc(num_wa_regs, sizeof(*reloc)); > > - igt_assert(reloc); > > - > > - result_sz = 4 * num_wa_regs; > > - result_sz = PAGE_ALIGN(result_sz); > > - > > - batch_sz = 16 * num_wa_regs + 4; > > - batch_sz = PAGE_ALIGN(batch_sz); > > - > > - memset(obj, 0, sizeof(obj)); > > - obj[0].handle = gem_create(fd, result_sz); > > - gem_set_caching(fd, obj[0].handle, I915_CACHING_CACHED); > > - obj[1].handle = gem_create(fd, batch_sz); > > - obj[1].relocs_ptr = to_user_pointer(reloc); > > - obj[1].relocation_count = num_wa_regs; > > - > > - out = base = gem_mmap__cpu(fd, obj[1].handle, 0, batch_sz, PROT_WRITE); > > - for (int i = 0; i < num_wa_regs; i++) { > > - *out++ = MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM | ((gen >= 8 ? 4 : 2) - 2); > > - *out++ = wa_regs[i].addr; > > - reloc[i].target_handle = obj[0].handle; > > - reloc[i].offset = (out - base) * sizeof(*out); > > - reloc[i].delta = i * sizeof(uint32_t); > > - reloc[i].read_domains = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_INSTRUCTION; > > - reloc[i].write_domain = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_INSTRUCTION; > > - *out++ = reloc[i].delta; > > - if (gen >= 8) > > - *out++ = 0; > > - } > > - *out++ = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END; > > - munmap(base, batch_sz); > > + igt_spin_t *spin; > > + int fw, fail = 0; > > > > - memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf)); > > - execbuf.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(obj); > > - execbuf.buffer_count = 2; > > - execbuf.rsvd1 = ctx; > > - gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); > > + spin = igt_spin_new(i915, .ctx = ctx, .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN); > > + igt_spin_busywait_until_started(spin); > > > > - gem_set_domain(fd, obj[0].handle, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU, 0); > > - > > - igt_debug("Address\tval\t\tmask\t\tread\t\tresult\n"); > > - > > - out = gem_mmap__cpu(fd, obj[0].handle, 0, result_sz, PROT_READ); > > + fw = igt_open_forcewake_handle(i915); > > assert that it went fine? Do we always expect the debugfs to be present? Do we strictly need it? igt_debug if it isn't present and correlate that to a fail. > Perhaps both will now do the trick. But if it fails > get the forcewake before spinner so you get more delay. Nah, I vote that in that case forcewake is broken and needs a kernel fix, as we don't have any such delay when using I915_READ(). -Chris _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-29 10:24 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-05-29 9:58 [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_workarounds: Verify regs directly Chris Wilson 2019-05-29 9:58 ` [igt-dev] " Chris Wilson 2019-05-29 10:00 ` Chris Wilson 2019-05-29 10:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson 2019-05-29 10:15 ` [igt-dev] " Mika Kuoppala 2019-05-29 10:15 ` Mika Kuoppala 2019-05-29 10:24 ` Chris Wilson [this message] 2019-05-29 10:24 ` Chris Wilson 2019-05-29 10:27 ` [igt-dev] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for i915/gem_workarounds: Verify regs directly (rev2) Patchwork 2019-05-29 14:56 ` [igt-dev] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2019-05-25 7:05 [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/gem_workarounds: Verify regs directly Chris Wilson 2019-05-29 9:51 ` Matthew Auld 2019-05-29 9:51 ` Matthew Auld
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=155912548956.13891.16600713179238619259@skylake-alporthouse-com \ --to=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \ --cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \ --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \ --cc=mika.kuoppala@linux.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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.