On 10/04/2018 10:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-04-10 10:23:28)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>

While thinking about sporadic failures of perf_pmu/rc6-runtime-pm* tests
on some CI machines I have concluded that: a) the PMU readout of RC6 can
race against runtime PM transitions, and b) there are other reasons than
being runtime suspended which can cause intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use to

Therefore when estimating RC6 the code needs to assert we are indeed in
suspended state and if not the best we can do is return the last known RC6

Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Fixes: 1fe699e30113 ("drm/i915/pmu: Fix sleep under atomic in RC6 readout")
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105010
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com>
I was able to trigger state != RPM_SUSPENDED on the shards, but not yet
the actual estimation overaccounting. As such this fix is based partially
on speculation that it will fix the sporadic perf_pmu/rc6* failures.
Nevertheless I think it is correct to add this check regardless.
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
index bd7e695fc663..e92a9571db77 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
@@ -473,6 +473,30 @@ static u64 get_rc6(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
                 spin_lock_irqsave(&i915->pmu.lock, flags);
+ /*
+                * After the above branch intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use failed
+                * to get the runtime PM reference we cannot assume we are in
+                * runtime suspend since we can either: a) race with coming out
+                * of it before we took the power.lock, or b) there are other
+                * states than suspended which can bring us here.
+                *
+                * We need to double-check that we are indeed currently runtime
+                * suspended and if not we cannot do better than report the last
+                * known RC6 value.
+                */
+               if (kdev->power.runtime_status != RPM_SUSPENDED) {
+                       spin_unlock(&kdev->power.lock);
+                       if (i915->pmu.sample[__I915_SAMPLE_RC6_ESTIMATED].cur)
+                               val = 
+                       else
+                               val = i915->pmu.sample[__I915_SAMPLE_RC6].cur;

If rpm awake, but having lost the race to read the regs, report the last
known value.

This is because we don't know if another thread is in the other branch,
and so we will have one updating the estimate while it being compared

No, the race is intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use telling us the device is not active, but a) that doesn't mean it is suspended, and b) it doesn't mean it is still suspended after the check.

Also PMU internal state is serialized by the spinlock so there is no inconsistency there.
But I'm not understanding the failure -- why is the estimate bad? At the
very least we still ensure that it is monotonic? Is it just the jitter
you are worrying about? (If the estimate is bad here, isn't it always

As far as I have seen failures from CI are all estimate being too large. (no jitter and no going backwards)

What I suspect is going bad in either case, is that we must not add the delta from current jiffies to internal runtime pm counters if state is not suspended. If we do that we are accounting an unknown period of time as suspended time and that would explain the over-estimation.

In other words we are only allowed to estimate if the current state is definitely suspended. If it is anything else we need to report either the last estimated value, or the last real value, depending what is more recent.

I've done a CI run which definitely shows we can end up in this path when state is not suspended.

+                       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i915->pmu.lock, flags);
+                       return val;
+               }

I'd prefer moving the RPM_SUSPENDED code into an else branch to avoid
another unlock/early return here. (It just fits into 80cols, so no
excuses ;)

Okay makes sense.


Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to