On Monday, June 21, 2010, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 01:43:05AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Saturday, June 19, 2010, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Saturday, June 19, 2010, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 01:23 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Friday, June 18, 2010, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 22:21 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw at sisk.pl> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have recently noticed a 55 sec. delay during the "device freeze" > > > > > > > phase of hibernation on my test-bed HP nx6325. Due to the 100% > > > > > > > reproducibility of it I was able to narrow it down to > > > > > > > radeon_suspend_kms() and then it turned out that the delay occured > > > > > > > somewhere in radeon_bo_evict_vram(). However, it doesn't seem > > > > > > > really > > > > > > > necessary or even very useful to me to evict VRAM at this > > > > > > > particular > > > > > > > point, because we're going to create an image and bring the device > > > > > > > back to the fully functional state in a little while. Thus, I > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > the VRAM evicition can be skipped for state.event == > > > > > > > PM_EVENT_FREEZE, > > > > > > > which makes the delay go away. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not 100% sure of the hibernate sequencing and its early in the > > > > > > morning, but we want to evict VRAM before image building so we can > > > > > > have > > > > > > the contents of VRAM in the image so we can restore them on resume. > > > > > > Does > > > > > > this just avoid evicting them a second time after we created the > > > > > > image? > > > > > > > > > > No, it's the first time, before creating the image, but I didn't seen > > > > > any > > > > > difference on resume with and without the patch, so I thought it was > > > > > a good > > > > > idea. :-) > > > > > > > > On the machine you have its most likely not going to show up unless you > > > > are running a 3D app or something across suspend, since currently X > > > > re-exposes most apps on VT switch, so they just redraw. > > > > > > Yes. Moreover, hibernation is always done after a VT switch. That's why > > > I said I thought the eviction wasn't necessary in the changelog. > > > > > > BTW, I have three different test boxes with radeon hardware and the > > > $subject patch is not a problem on any of them. > > > > > > > Was it always this slow? > > > > > > Nope. It definitely is a regression, although I'm not sure what's the > > > last > > > good kernel. > > > > > > > you can see how many objects are in vram using > > > > debugfs (/sys/kernel/debug/dri/0/radeon_vram_mm), it sounds like the TTM > > > > eviction process is blocking on something, > > > > I did some more debug work (the _total_ lack of comments inside of the > > relevant radeon and ttm code makes this a next-to-impossible task, though) > > and found that all of the delays (up to 5 seconds) happen inside of > > ttm_bo_move_accel_cleanup() called from radeon_move_blit(), where the "new" > > memory type is TTL_PL_TT and the "old" one is TTL_PL_VRAM. The preceding > > radeon_copy() always returns 0. > > > > Please let me know if you need more information. > > > > Thanks, > > Rafael > > Can you confirm that this is trigger by first radeon_bo_evict_vram in > radeon_suspend_kms() ?
Not really. I used the attached debug patch and I got the attached dmesg output from a "core" hibernate test. It looks like the first one is relatively sane (71 usecs), but things get worse going forward. > Also can you check if irq is enabled (put some > debug in the irq handler of your gpu). My guess is that irq are stop > (likely stop before radeon suspend callback) No, interrupts are not switched off at this point yet. At least not permanently. > and that we endup waiting that the fence timeout expire in > radeon_fence_wait(). I guess something like this happens, although I'm not sure about the root cause. It looks like it interferes with something happening in parallel with it. I wonder, however, why it is a problem for hibernation and it's not a problem for suspend to RAM and why the other machines are not affected. Rafael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: drm-ttm-debug-list-cleaning.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1585 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20100621/5cc245de/attachment-0002.bin> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: nx6325-dmesg.log Type: text/x-log Size: 224186 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20100621/5cc245de/attachment-0003.bin>
