Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 / 3.0 regression ignored?

[Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru>]

On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 05:00:52PM +0300, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 August 2011 15:08:03 Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 05:48:27PM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 12:23:36AM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> > > > Keith,
> > > > 
> > > > first of all thanks for your prompt reply. Then...
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:00:41AM -0700, Keith Packard wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:08:06 +0400, Kirill Smelkov <kirr@mns.spb.ru> 
> wrote:
> > > > > > And now after v3.0 is out, I've tested it again, and yes, like it
> > > > > > was broken on v3.0-rc5, it is (now even more) broken on v3.0 --
> > > > > > after first
> > > > > 
> > > > > > bad io access the system freezes completely:
> > > > > I looked at this when I first saw it (a couple of weeks ago), and I
> > > > > couldn't see any obvious reason this patch would cause this
> > > > > particular problem. I didn't want to revert the patch at that point
> > > > > as I feared it would cause other subtle problems. Given that you've
> > > > > got a work-around, it seemed best to just push this off past 3.0.
> > > > 
> > > > What kind of a workaround are you talking about? Sorry, to me it all
> > > > looked like "UMS is being ignored forever". Anyway, let's move on to
> > > > try to solve the issue.
> > > > 
> > > > > Given the failing address passed to ioread32, this seems like it's
> > > > > probably the call to READ_BREADCRUMB -- I915_BREADCRUMB_INDEX is
> > > > > 0x21, which is an offset in 32-bit units within the hardware status
> > > > > page. If the status_page.page_addr value was zero, then the computed
> > > > > address would end up being 0x84.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And, it looks like status_page.page_addr *will* end up being zero as
> > > > > a result of the patch in question. The patch resets the entire ring
> > > > > structure contents back to the initial values, which includes
> > > > > smashing the status_page structure to zero, clearing the value of
> > > > > status_page.page_addr set in i915_init_phys_hws.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Here's an untested patch which moves the initialization of
> > > > > status_page.page_addr into intel_render_ring_init_dri. I note that
> > > > > intel_init_render_ring_buffer *already* has the setting of the
> > > > > status_page.page_addr value, and so I've removed the setting of
> > > > > status_page.page_addr from i915_init_phys_hws.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I suspect we could remove the memset from
> > > > > intel_init_render_ring_buffer; it seems entirely superfluous given
> > > > > the memset in i915_init_phys_hws.
> > > > > 
> > > > > From 159ba1dd207fc52590ce8a3afd83f40bd2cedf46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
> > > > > 2001 From: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
> > > > > Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:44:39 -0700
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] drm/i915: Initialize RCS ring status page address in
> > > > > 
> > > > >  intel_render_ring_init_dri
> > > > > 
> > > > > Physically-addressed hardware status pages are initialized early in
> > > > > the driver load process by i915_init_phys_hws. For UMS environments,
> > > > > the ring structure is not initialized until the X server starts. At
> > > > > that point, the entire ring structure is re-initialized with all new
> > > > > values. Any values set in the ring structure (including
> > > > > ring->status_page.page_addr) will be lost when the ring is
> > > > > re-initialized.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This patch moves the initialization of the status_page.page_addr
> > > > > value to intel_render_ring_init_dri.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c         |    6 ++----
> > > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c |    3 +++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c index 1271282..8a3942c 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > > > @@ -61,7 +61,6 @@ static void i915_write_hws_pga(struct drm_device
> > > > > *dev)
> > > > > 
> > > > >  static int i915_init_phys_hws(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  
> > > > >  	drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > > > > 
> > > > > -	struct intel_ring_buffer *ring = LP_RING(dev_priv);
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	/* Program Hardware Status Page */
> > > > >  	dev_priv->status_page_dmah =
> > > > > 
> > > > > @@ -71,10 +70,9 @@ static int i915_init_phys_hws(struct drm_device
> > > > > *dev)
> > > > > 
> > > > >  		DRM_ERROR("Can not allocate hardware status page\n");
> > > > >  		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > >  	
> > > > >  	}
> > > > > 
> > > > > -	ring->status_page.page_addr =
> > > > > -		(void __force __iomem *)dev_priv->status_page_dmah->vaddr;
> > > > > 
> > > > > -	memset_io(ring->status_page.page_addr, 0, PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > > +	memset_io((void __force __iomem
> > > > > *)dev_priv->status_page_dmah->vaddr, +		  0, PAGE_SIZE);
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	i915_write_hws_pga(dev);
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c index e961568..47b9b27
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > > @@ -1321,6 +1321,9 @@ int intel_render_ring_init_dri(struct
> > > > > drm_device *dev, u64 start, u32 size)
> > > > > 
> > > > >  		ring->get_seqno = pc_render_get_seqno;
> > > > >  	
> > > > >  	}
> > > > > 
> > > > > +	if (!I915_NEED_GFX_HWS(dev))
> > > > > +		ring->status_page.page_addr = dev_priv->status_page_dmah->vaddr;
> > > > > +
> > > > > 
> > > > >  	ring->dev = dev;
> > > > >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->active_list);
> > > > >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->request_list);
> > > > 
> > > > I can't tell whether this is correct, because intel gfx driver is
> > > > unknown to me, but from the first glance your description sounds
> > > > reasonable.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm out of office till ~ next week's tuesday, and on return I'll try
> > > > to test it on the hardware in question.
> > > 
> > > Keith, thanks again for the patch. As promised I've tested it on the
> > > hardware in question and yes, bad_access is gone and X seems to work,
> > > so thank you, but...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I see there are more such bugs in introduced-in-guilty-patch
> > > intel_render_ring_init_dri(). For example ring->irq_queue is
> > > left uninitialized and also ring->irq_lock etc...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm X newbie, so if here is something stupid X-wise, please don't
> > > beat me too hard, but to me the gist of the problem is the original
> > > patch, where Chris does
> > > 
> > > ( git show e8616b6ced6137085e6657cc63bc2fe3900b8616 )
> > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c index 03e3370..51fbc5e
> > > > 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > @@ -1291,6 +1291,48 @@ int intel_init_render_ring_buffer(struct
> > > > drm_device *dev)
> > > > 
> > > >         return intel_init_ring_buffer(dev, ring);
> > > >  
> > > >  }
> > > > 
> > > > +int intel_render_ring_init_dri(struct drm_device *dev, u64 start, u32
> > > > size) +{
> > > > +       drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > > > +       struct intel_ring_buffer *ring = &dev_priv->ring[RCS];
> > > > +
> > > > +       *ring = render_ring;
> > > > 
> > >           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >           here resets
> > > > 
> > > > +       if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 6) {
> > > > +               ring->add_request = gen6_add_request;
> > > > +               ring->irq_get = gen6_render_ring_get_irq;
> > > > +               ring->irq_put = gen6_render_ring_put_irq;
> > > > +       } else if (IS_GEN5(dev)) {
> > > > +               ring->add_request = pc_render_add_request;
> > > > +               ring->get_seqno = pc_render_get_seqno;
> > > > +       }
> > > 
> > > and then the rest of the `ring` is initialized seemingly copy-pasted
> > > 
> > > from intel_init_ring_buffer():
> > > > +       ring->dev = dev;
> > > > +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->active_list);
> > > > +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->request_list);
> > > > +       INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->gpu_write_list);
> > > > +
> > > > +       ring->size = size;
> > > > +       ring->effective_size = ring->size;
> > > > +       if (IS_I830(ring->dev))
> > > > +               ring->effective_size -= 128;
> > > > +
> > > > +       ring->map.offset = start;
> > > > +       ring->map.size = size;
> > > > +       ring->map.type = 0;
> > > > +       ring->map.flags = 0;
> > > > +       ring->map.mtrr = 0;
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > where both 3 chunks go almost exactly from intel_init_ring_buffer(), and
> > > ring->effective_size tweak even stripped original comment:
> > > 
> > > # original version from intel_init_ring_buffer():
> > >         /* Workaround an erratum on the i830 which causes a hang if
> > >         
> > >          * the TAIL pointer points to within the last 2 cachelines
> > >          * of the buffer.
> > >          */
> > >         
> > >         ring->effective_size = ring->size;
> > >         if (IS_I830(ring->dev))
> > >         
> > >                 ring->effective_size -= 128;
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The line marked "here resets" resets all the fields, and maybe it's not a
> > > good idea to re-initialize them all afterwards (missing some as this
> > > thread show), or at least if it is really needed, share initialization
> > > code between intel_render_ring_init_dri() and intel_init_ring_buffer() ?
> > > 
> > > >From the outside it looks like the offending patch was done as a quick
> > > 
> > > fix in a hurry (lots of copy-paste), and maybe it would be better to
> > > re-do it properly...
> > 
> > Silence... ?
> > 
> > I read UMS is still ignored, because e.g. that uninitialized
> > ring->irq_lock which I've wrote about above is for sure used e.g. in
> > gen6_render_ring_get_irq() added to ring vtable in
> > intel_render_ring_init_dri().
> 
> I really doubt that UMS supports gen6 hardware.

Then why it is there in intel_render_ring_init_dri():

    int intel_render_ring_init_dri(struct drm_device *dev, u64 start, u32 size)
    {
    	drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
    	struct intel_ring_buffer *ring = &dev_priv->ring[RCS];
    
    	*ring = render_ring;
    	if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen >= 6) {
    		ring->add_request = gen6_add_request;
    		ring->irq_get = gen6_render_ring_get_irq;
    		ring->irq_put = gen6_render_ring_put_irq;
    	} else if (IS_GEN5(dev)) {
    		ring->add_request = pc_render_add_request;
    		ring->get_seqno = pc_render_get_seqno;
    	}


?


Added by the same guilty commit e8616b6c I'm talking about.