All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards
@ 2017-11-10 19:01 Michel Thierry
  2017-11-10 19:22 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards (rev3) Patchwork
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michel Thierry @ 2017-11-10 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: intel-gfx

Until Haswell/Baytrail, the hardware used to have a per engine fault
register (e.g. 0x4094 - render fault register, 0x4194 - media fault
register and so on). But since Broadwell, all these registers were
combined into a singe one and the engine id stored in bits 14:12.

Not only we should not been reading (and writing to) registers that do
not exist, in platforms with VCS2 (SKL), the address that would belong
this engine (0x4494, VCS2_HW = 4) is already assigned to other register.

References: IHD-OS-BDW-Vol 2c-11.15, page 75.
References: IHD-OS-SKL-Vol 2c-05.16, page 350.
Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c   | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c |  8 +++++---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h       |  2 ++
 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
index 1e40eeb31f9d..66a907330ad2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
@@ -2256,16 +2256,13 @@ static bool needs_idle_maps(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 	return IS_GEN5(dev_priv) && IS_MOBILE(dev_priv) && intel_vtd_active();
 }
 
-void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+void __check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 {
 	struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
 	enum intel_engine_id id;
-
-	if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen < 6)
-		return;
+	u32 fault_reg;
 
 	for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id) {
-		u32 fault_reg;
 		fault_reg = I915_READ(RING_FAULT_REG(engine));
 		if (fault_reg & RING_FAULT_VALID) {
 			DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Unexpected fault\n"
@@ -2281,6 +2278,37 @@ void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 				   fault_reg & ~RING_FAULT_VALID);
 		}
 	}
+}
+
+void __gen8_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+{
+	u32 fault_reg = I915_READ(GEN8_RING_FAULT_REG);
+
+	if (fault_reg & RING_FAULT_VALID) {
+		DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Unexpected fault\n"
+				 "\tAddr: 0x%08lx\n"
+				 "\tEngine ID: %d\n"
+				 "\tSource ID: %d\n"
+				 "\tType: %d\n",
+				 fault_reg & PAGE_MASK,
+				 GEN8_RING_FAULT_ENGINE_ID(fault_reg),
+				 RING_FAULT_SRCID(fault_reg),
+				 RING_FAULT_FAULT_TYPE(fault_reg));
+		I915_WRITE(GEN8_RING_FAULT_REG,
+			   fault_reg & ~RING_FAULT_VALID);
+	}
+}
+
+void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+{
+	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 6)
+		return;
+
+	/* From GEN8 onwards we only have one 'All Engine Fault Register' */
+	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8)
+		__gen8_check_and_clear_faults(dev_priv);
+	else
+		__check_and_clear_faults(dev_priv);
 
 	/* Engine specific init may not have been done till this point. */
 	if (dev_priv->engine[RCS])
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
index 5c2d83a838d8..7481c8e1b5a8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
@@ -1217,11 +1217,13 @@ static void error_record_engine_registers(struct i915_gpu_state *error,
 
 	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 6) {
 		ee->rc_psmi = I915_READ(RING_PSMI_CTL(engine->mmio_base));
-		ee->fault_reg = I915_READ(RING_FAULT_REG(engine));
-		if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8)
+		if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8) {
 			gen8_record_semaphore_state(error, engine, ee);
-		else
+			ee->fault_reg = I915_READ(GEN8_RING_FAULT_REG);
+		} else {
 			gen6_record_semaphore_state(engine, ee);
+			ee->fault_reg = I915_READ(RING_FAULT_REG(engine));
+		}
 	}
 
 	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 4) {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
index 6ef33422f762..7ef82ba670e9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
@@ -2329,6 +2329,8 @@ enum i915_power_well_id {
 #define   ARB_MODE_SWIZZLE_BDW	(1<<1)
 #define RENDER_HWS_PGA_GEN7	_MMIO(0x04080)
 #define RING_FAULT_REG(engine)	_MMIO(0x4094 + 0x100*(engine)->hw_id)
+#define GEN8_RING_FAULT_REG	_MMIO(0x4094)
+#define   GEN8_RING_FAULT_ENGINE_ID(x)	(((x) >> 12) & 0x7)
 #define   RING_FAULT_GTTSEL_MASK (1<<11)
 #define   RING_FAULT_SRCID(x)	(((x) >> 3) & 0xff)
 #define   RING_FAULT_FAULT_TYPE(x) (((x) >> 1) & 0x3)
-- 
2.15.0

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

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards (rev3)
  2017-11-10 19:01 [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards Michel Thierry
@ 2017-11-10 19:22 ` Patchwork
  2017-11-10 20:24 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
  2017-11-10 20:51 ` [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards Chris Wilson
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2017-11-10 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michel Thierry; +Cc: intel-gfx

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards (rev3)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/26317/
State : success

== Summary ==

Series 26317v3 drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/26317/revisions/3/mbox/

Test gem_exec_suspend:
        Subgroup basic-s3:
                dmesg-fail -> PASS       (fi-kbl-7560u) fdo#103039
        Subgroup basic-s4-devices:
                dmesg-fail -> PASS       (fi-kbl-7560u) fdo#102846 +1
Test gem_flink_basic:
        Subgroup bad-flink:
                dmesg-warn -> PASS       (fi-kbl-7560u) fdo#103049 +4
Test gem_linear_blits:
        Subgroup basic:
                incomplete -> PASS       (fi-kbl-7560u) fdo#103163
Test kms_cursor_legacy:
        Subgroup basic-busy-flip-before-cursor-legacy:
                fail       -> PASS       (fi-gdg-551) fdo#102618

fdo#103039 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103039
fdo#102846 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102846
fdo#103049 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103049
fdo#103163 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103163
fdo#102618 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102618

fi-bdw-5557u     total:289  pass:268  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:21  time:443s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm    total:289  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:456s
fi-blb-e6850     total:289  pass:223  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:65  time:382s
fi-bsw-n3050     total:289  pass:243  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:46  time:548s
fi-bwr-2160      total:289  pass:183  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:106 time:274s
fi-bxt-j4205     total:289  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:510s
fi-byt-j1900     total:289  pass:254  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:35  time:497s
fi-byt-n2820     total:289  pass:250  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:39  time:489s
fi-elk-e7500     total:289  pass:229  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:60  time:428s
fi-gdg-551       total:289  pass:178  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:1   skip:109 time:263s
fi-glk-1         total:289  pass:261  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:28  time:544s
fi-hsw-4770      total:289  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:436s
fi-hsw-4770r     total:289  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:443s
fi-ilk-650       total:289  pass:228  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:61  time:430s
fi-ivb-3520m     total:289  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:474s
fi-ivb-3770      total:289  pass:260  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:29  time:461s
fi-kbl-7500u     total:289  pass:264  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:489s
fi-kbl-7560u     total:247  pass:230  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16 
fi-kbl-7567u     total:289  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:476s
fi-kbl-r         total:289  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:544s
fi-pnv-d510      total:289  pass:222  dwarn:1   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:66  time:568s
fi-skl-6260u     total:289  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:455s
fi-skl-6600u     total:289  pass:262  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:27  time:549s
fi-skl-6700hq    total:289  pass:263  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:26  time:566s
fi-skl-6700k     total:289  pass:265  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:24  time:523s
fi-skl-6770hq    total:289  pass:269  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:20  time:503s
fi-skl-gvtdvm    total:289  pass:266  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:23  time:460s
fi-snb-2520m     total:289  pass:250  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:39  time:565s
fi-snb-2600      total:289  pass:249  dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:40  time:425s
Blacklisted hosts:
fi-cfl-s         total:289  pass:254  dwarn:3   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:32  time:546s
fi-glk-dsi       total:62   pass:45   dwarn:0   dfail:0   fail:0   skip:16 
fi-bxt-dsi failed to connect after reboot

6f3dca38f7a939db9658bd11d9c37357089cabef drm-tip: 2017y-11m-10d-12h-56m-44s UTC integration manifest
bf772f904fe3 drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_7067/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success for drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards (rev3)
  2017-11-10 19:01 [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards Michel Thierry
  2017-11-10 19:22 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards (rev3) Patchwork
@ 2017-11-10 20:24 ` Patchwork
  2017-11-10 20:51 ` [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards Chris Wilson
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2017-11-10 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michel Thierry; +Cc: intel-gfx

== Series Details ==

Series: drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards (rev3)
URL   : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/26317/
State : success

== Summary ==

Test kms_flip:
        Subgroup modeset-vs-vblank-race-interruptible:
                fail       -> PASS       (shard-hsw) fdo#103060
        Subgroup plain-flip-ts-check-interruptible:
                pass       -> FAIL       (shard-hsw) fdo#100368
Test perf:
        Subgroup blocking:
                fail       -> PASS       (shard-hsw) fdo#102252
Test kms_frontbuffer_tracking:
        Subgroup fbc-farfromfence:
                skip       -> PASS       (shard-hsw)
Test kms_busy:
        Subgroup extended-modeset-hang-oldfb-with-reset-render-a:
                pass       -> DMESG-WARN (shard-hsw) fdo#102249

fdo#103060 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103060
fdo#100368 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100368
fdo#102252 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102252
fdo#102249 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102249

shard-hsw        total:2584 pass:1471 dwarn:2   dfail:1   fail:11  skip:1099 time:9454s
Blacklisted hosts:
shard-apl        total:2584 pass:1620 dwarn:4   dfail:1   fail:23  skip:936 time:13241s
shard-kbl        total:2556 pass:1688 dwarn:17  dfail:1   fail:23  skip:825 time:9926s
shard-snb        total:2584 pass:1211 dwarn:2   dfail:1   fail:12  skip:1358 time:7801s

== Logs ==

For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_7067/shards.html
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards
  2017-11-10 19:01 [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards Michel Thierry
  2017-11-10 19:22 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards (rev3) Patchwork
  2017-11-10 20:24 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
@ 2017-11-10 20:51 ` Chris Wilson
  2017-11-10 23:42   ` Michel Thierry
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-11-10 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michel Thierry, intel-gfx

Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-11-10 19:01:16)
> Until Haswell/Baytrail, the hardware used to have a per engine fault
> register (e.g. 0x4094 - render fault register, 0x4194 - media fault
> register and so on). But since Broadwell, all these registers were
> combined into a singe one and the engine id stored in bits 14:12.
> 
> Not only we should not been reading (and writing to) registers that do
> not exist, in platforms with VCS2 (SKL), the address that would belong
> this engine (0x4494, VCS2_HW = 4) is already assigned to other register.
> 
> References: IHD-OS-BDW-Vol 2c-11.15, page 75.
> References: IHD-OS-SKL-Vol 2c-05.16, page 350.
> Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c   | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c |  8 +++++---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h       |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> index 1e40eeb31f9d..66a907330ad2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> @@ -2256,16 +2256,13 @@ static bool needs_idle_maps(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>         return IS_GEN5(dev_priv) && IS_MOBILE(dev_priv) && intel_vtd_active();
>  }
>  
> -void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> +void __check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)

I am amazed that -Wextra doesn't complain. Try with sparse.

There's an old thread where this was raised and how we are not clearing
the faults early enough.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards
  2017-11-10 20:51 ` [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards Chris Wilson
@ 2017-11-10 23:42   ` Michel Thierry
  2017-11-10 23:50     ` Chris Wilson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michel Thierry @ 2017-11-10 23:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx

On 11/10/2017 12:51 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-11-10 19:01:16)
>> Until Haswell/Baytrail, the hardware used to have a per engine fault
>> register (e.g. 0x4094 - render fault register, 0x4194 - media fault
>> register and so on). But since Broadwell, all these registers were
>> combined into a singe one and the engine id stored in bits 14:12.
>>
>> Not only we should not been reading (and writing to) registers that do
>> not exist, in platforms with VCS2 (SKL), the address that would belong
>> this engine (0x4494, VCS2_HW = 4) is already assigned to other register.
>>
>> References: IHD-OS-BDW-Vol 2c-11.15, page 75.
>> References: IHD-OS-SKL-Vol 2c-05.16, page 350.
>> Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c   | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c |  8 +++++---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h       |  2 ++
>>   3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> index 1e40eeb31f9d..66a907330ad2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> @@ -2256,16 +2256,13 @@ static bool needs_idle_maps(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>          return IS_GEN5(dev_priv) && IS_MOBILE(dev_priv) && intel_vtd_active();
>>   }
>>   
>> -void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> +void __check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> 
> I am amazed that -Wextra doesn't complain. Try with sparse.
>

Hmm, no they didn't... gen6_check_and_clear_faults and 
gen8_check_and_clear_faults are less controversial.

> There's an old thread where this was raised and how we are not clearing
> the faults early enough.

Ah, I found that thread [1], and as you said there, right now the 
for_each_engine is a nop (with this patch at least gen8+ would do the 
right thing).

Since gen6/gen7 engines are well known and can't change, do we really 
need for_each_engine?

[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/101331/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards
  2017-11-10 23:42   ` Michel Thierry
@ 2017-11-10 23:50     ` Chris Wilson
  2017-11-11  0:15       ` Michel Thierry
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-11-10 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michel Thierry, intel-gfx

Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-11-10 23:42:31)
> On 11/10/2017 12:51 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-11-10 19:01:16)
> >> Until Haswell/Baytrail, the hardware used to have a per engine fault
> >> register (e.g. 0x4094 - render fault register, 0x4194 - media fault
> >> register and so on). But since Broadwell, all these registers were
> >> combined into a singe one and the engine id stored in bits 14:12.
> >>
> >> Not only we should not been reading (and writing to) registers that do
> >> not exist, in platforms with VCS2 (SKL), the address that would belong
> >> this engine (0x4494, VCS2_HW = 4) is already assigned to other register.
> >>
> >> References: IHD-OS-BDW-Vol 2c-11.15, page 75.
> >> References: IHD-OS-SKL-Vol 2c-05.16, page 350.
> >> Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c   | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c |  8 +++++---
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h       |  2 ++
> >>   3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> >> index 1e40eeb31f9d..66a907330ad2 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> >> @@ -2256,16 +2256,13 @@ static bool needs_idle_maps(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >>          return IS_GEN5(dev_priv) && IS_MOBILE(dev_priv) && intel_vtd_active();
> >>   }
> >>   
> >> -void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >> +void __check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > 
> > I am amazed that -Wextra doesn't complain. Try with sparse.
> >
> 
> Hmm, no they didn't... gen6_check_and_clear_faults and 
> gen8_check_and_clear_faults are less controversial.

The missing static and lack of extern declaration. I know sparse catches
it, I guess for K&R the order is just right for it not to complain.

> > There's an old thread where this was raised and how we are not clearing
> > the faults early enough.
> 
> Ah, I found that thread [1], and as you said there, right now the 
> for_each_engine is a nop (with this patch at least gen8+ would do the 
> right thing).
> 
> Since gen6/gen7 engines are well known and can't change, do we really 
> need for_each_engine?

For consistency, yeah it would be nice to keep for_each_engine. We should
be ok to do the clear around i915_driver_init_mmio (it's mmio, it has to
be there ;), maybe worth pulling it into intel_engines_init_mmio() or
i915_gem_init_mmio(). I'm learning towards sanitization from within
intel_engines_init_mmio()
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards
  2017-11-10 23:50     ` Chris Wilson
@ 2017-11-11  0:15       ` Michel Thierry
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michel Thierry @ 2017-11-11  0:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx

On 11/10/2017 3:50 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-11-10 23:42:31)
>> On 11/10/2017 12:51 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-11-10 19:01:16)
>>>> Until Haswell/Baytrail, the hardware used to have a per engine fault
>>>> register (e.g. 0x4094 - render fault register, 0x4194 - media fault
>>>> register and so on). But since Broadwell, all these registers were
>>>> combined into a singe one and the engine id stored in bits 14:12.
>>>>
>>>> Not only we should not been reading (and writing to) registers that do
>>>> not exist, in platforms with VCS2 (SKL), the address that would belong
>>>> this engine (0x4494, VCS2_HW = 4) is already assigned to other register.
>>>>
>>>> References: IHD-OS-BDW-Vol 2c-11.15, page 75.
>>>> References: IHD-OS-SKL-Vol 2c-05.16, page 350.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c   | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c |  8 +++++---
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h       |  2 ++
>>>>    3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>>>> index 1e40eeb31f9d..66a907330ad2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>>>> @@ -2256,16 +2256,13 @@ static bool needs_idle_maps(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>>>           return IS_GEN5(dev_priv) && IS_MOBILE(dev_priv) && intel_vtd_active();
>>>>    }
>>>>    
>>>> -void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>>> +void __check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>>
>>> I am amazed that -Wextra doesn't complain. Try with sparse.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, no they didn't... gen6_check_and_clear_faults and
>> gen8_check_and_clear_faults are less controversial.
> 
> The missing static and lack of extern declaration. I know sparse catches
> it, I guess for K&R the order is just right for it not to complain.
> 
>>> There's an old thread where this was raised and how we are not clearing
>>> the faults early enough.
>>
>> Ah, I found that thread [1], and as you said there, right now the
>> for_each_engine is a nop (with this patch at least gen8+ would do the
>> right thing).
>>
>> Since gen6/gen7 engines are well known and can't change, do we really
>> need for_each_engine?
> 
> For consistency, yeah it would be nice to keep for_each_engine. We should
> be ok to do the clear around i915_driver_init_mmio (it's mmio, it has to
> be there ;), maybe worth pulling it into intel_engines_init_mmio() or
> i915_gem_init_mmio(). I'm learning towards sanitization from within
> intel_engines_init_mmio()

Ok, I'll move the check_and_clear_faults from intel_uncore_init to 
intel_engines_init_mmio (that's the one checking at driver load time).

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards
  2017-06-23 23:35 ` Chris Wilson
@ 2017-06-23 23:43   ` Michel Thierry
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michel Thierry @ 2017-06-23 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx



On 23/06/17 16:35, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-06-24 00:17:29)
>> Until Haswell/Baytrail, the hardware used to have a per engine fault
>> register (e.g. 0x4094 - render fault register, 0x4194 - media fault
>> register, etc). But since Broadwell, all these registers were combined
>> into a singe one, which specifies the engine id in bits 14:12.
>>
>> Luckily, the additional register addresses haven't been reused, but we
>> should not been reading (and writing to) registers that do not exist.
>>
>> References: IHD-OS-BDW-Vol 2c-11.15, page 75.
>> Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c   | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c |  8 +++++---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h       |  2 ++
>>  3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> index de67084d5fcf..83deb004368c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
>> @@ -2000,22 +2000,41 @@ void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>         if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen < 6)
>>                 return;
>>
>> -       for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id) {
>> +       /* From GEN8 onwards we only have one 'All Engine Fault Register' */
>> +       if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 8) {
> INTEL_GEN() >= 8
>

Oops, busted copy-pasting old code, I'll also change it 
(INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen < 6).

>>                 u32 fault_reg;
>
> Newline after variable blocks (might as well fix up the coding style in
> passing).
>
> u32 fault;
>
> foo_reg is more commonly used to refer to the register offset itself,
> i.e. i915_reg_t.  Might as well move it to the start of the function as
> it is shared between all branches, and I don't think we are overly
> concerned with aiding gcc's liverange analysis here.

I thought about moving it to the start of the function. Let me make 
these changes.

Thanks,

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards
  2017-06-23 23:17 [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards Michel Thierry
@ 2017-06-23 23:35 ` Chris Wilson
  2017-06-23 23:43   ` Michel Thierry
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-06-23 23:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michel Thierry, intel-gfx

Quoting Michel Thierry (2017-06-24 00:17:29)
> Until Haswell/Baytrail, the hardware used to have a per engine fault
> register (e.g. 0x4094 - render fault register, 0x4194 - media fault
> register, etc). But since Broadwell, all these registers were combined
> into a singe one, which specifies the engine id in bits 14:12.
> 
> Luckily, the additional register addresses haven't been reused, but we
> should not been reading (and writing to) registers that do not exist.
> 
> References: IHD-OS-BDW-Vol 2c-11.15, page 75.
> Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c   | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c |  8 +++++---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h       |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> index de67084d5fcf..83deb004368c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> @@ -2000,22 +2000,41 @@ void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>         if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen < 6)
>                 return;
>  
> -       for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id) {
> +       /* From GEN8 onwards we only have one 'All Engine Fault Register' */
> +       if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 8) {
INTEL_GEN() >= 8

>                 u32 fault_reg;

Newline after variable blocks (might as well fix up the coding style in
passing).

u32 fault;

foo_reg is more commonly used to refer to the register offset itself,
i.e. i915_reg_t.  Might as well move it to the start of the function as
it is shared between all branches, and I don't think we are overly
concerned with aiding gcc's liverange analysis here.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards
@ 2017-06-23 23:17 Michel Thierry
  2017-06-23 23:35 ` Chris Wilson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Michel Thierry @ 2017-06-23 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: intel-gfx

Until Haswell/Baytrail, the hardware used to have a per engine fault
register (e.g. 0x4094 - render fault register, 0x4194 - media fault
register, etc). But since Broadwell, all these registers were combined
into a singe one, which specifies the engine id in bits 14:12.

Luckily, the additional register addresses haven't been reused, but we
should not been reading (and writing to) registers that do not exist.

References: IHD-OS-BDW-Vol 2c-11.15, page 75.
Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c   | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c |  8 +++++---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h       |  2 ++
 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
index de67084d5fcf..83deb004368c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
@@ -2000,22 +2000,41 @@ void i915_check_and_clear_faults(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
 	if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen < 6)
 		return;
 
-	for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id) {
+	/* From GEN8 onwards we only have one 'All Engine Fault Register' */
+	if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 8) {
 		u32 fault_reg;
-		fault_reg = I915_READ(RING_FAULT_REG(engine));
+		fault_reg = I915_READ(GEN8_RING_FAULT_REG);
 		if (fault_reg & RING_FAULT_VALID) {
 			DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Unexpected fault\n"
 					 "\tAddr: 0x%08lx\n"
-					 "\tAddress space: %s\n"
+					 "\tEngine ID: %d\n"
 					 "\tSource ID: %d\n"
 					 "\tType: %d\n",
 					 fault_reg & PAGE_MASK,
-					 fault_reg & RING_FAULT_GTTSEL_MASK ? "GGTT" : "PPGTT",
+					 GEN8_RING_FAULT_ENGINE_ID(fault_reg),
 					 RING_FAULT_SRCID(fault_reg),
 					 RING_FAULT_FAULT_TYPE(fault_reg));
-			I915_WRITE(RING_FAULT_REG(engine),
+			I915_WRITE(GEN8_RING_FAULT_REG,
 				   fault_reg & ~RING_FAULT_VALID);
 		}
+	} else {
+		for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id) {
+			u32 fault_reg;
+			fault_reg = I915_READ(RING_FAULT_REG(engine));
+			if (fault_reg & RING_FAULT_VALID) {
+				DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Unexpected fault\n"
+						 "\tAddr: 0x%08lx\n"
+						 "\tAddress space: %s\n"
+						 "\tSource ID: %d\n"
+						 "\tType: %d\n",
+						 fault_reg & PAGE_MASK,
+						 fault_reg & RING_FAULT_GTTSEL_MASK ? "GGTT" : "PPGTT",
+						 RING_FAULT_SRCID(fault_reg),
+						 RING_FAULT_FAULT_TYPE(fault_reg));
+				I915_WRITE(RING_FAULT_REG(engine),
+					   fault_reg & ~RING_FAULT_VALID);
+			}
+		}
 	}
 
 	/* Engine specific init may not have been done till this point. */
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
index ae70283470a6..b7f147b1b6dd 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
@@ -1167,11 +1167,13 @@ static void error_record_engine_registers(struct i915_gpu_state *error,
 
 	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 6) {
 		ee->rc_psmi = I915_READ(RING_PSMI_CTL(engine->mmio_base));
-		ee->fault_reg = I915_READ(RING_FAULT_REG(engine));
-		if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8)
+		if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8) {
 			gen8_record_semaphore_state(error, engine, ee);
-		else
+			ee->fault_reg = I915_READ(GEN8_RING_FAULT_REG);
+		} else {
 			gen6_record_semaphore_state(engine, ee);
+			ee->fault_reg = I915_READ(RING_FAULT_REG(engine));
+		}
 	}
 
 	if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 4) {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
index c8647cfa81ba..54a828aad777 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_reg.h
@@ -2149,6 +2149,8 @@ enum skl_disp_power_wells {
 #define   ARB_MODE_SWIZZLE_BDW	(1<<1)
 #define RENDER_HWS_PGA_GEN7	_MMIO(0x04080)
 #define RING_FAULT_REG(engine)	_MMIO(0x4094 + 0x100*(engine)->hw_id)
+#define GEN8_RING_FAULT_REG	_MMIO(0x4094)
+#define   GEN8_RING_FAULT_ENGINE_ID(x)	(((x) >> 12) & 0x7)
 #define   RING_FAULT_GTTSEL_MASK (1<<11)
 #define   RING_FAULT_SRCID(x)	(((x) >> 3) & 0xff)
 #define   RING_FAULT_FAULT_TYPE(x) (((x) >> 1) & 0x3)
-- 
2.11.0

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

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2017-11-11  0:15 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-11-10 19:01 [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards Michel Thierry
2017-11-10 19:22 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards (rev3) Patchwork
2017-11-10 20:24 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2017-11-10 20:51 ` [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from GEN8 onwards Chris Wilson
2017-11-10 23:42   ` Michel Thierry
2017-11-10 23:50     ` Chris Wilson
2017-11-11  0:15       ` Michel Thierry
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-06-23 23:17 [PATCH] drm/i915: There is only one fault register from Gen8 onwards Michel Thierry
2017-06-23 23:35 ` Chris Wilson
2017-06-23 23:43   ` Michel Thierry

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.