On 12/22/2021 08:21, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/12/2021 22:14, John Harrison wrote:
On 12/21/2021 05:37, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 20/12/2021 18:34, John Harrison wrote:
On 12/20/2021 07:00, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 17/12/2021 16:22, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:15:53PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 14/12/2021 15:07, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Log engine resets done by the GuC firmware in the similar way
it is done
by the execlists backend.
This way we have notion of where the hangs are before the GuC
gains
support for proper error capture.
Ping - any interest to log this info?
All there currently is a non-descriptive "[drm] GPU HANG: ecode
12:0:00000000".
Yea, this could be helpful. One suggestion below.
Also, will GuC be reporting the reason for the engine reset at
any point?
We are working on the error state capture, presumably the
registers will
give a clue what caused the hang.
As for the GuC providing a reason, that isn't defined in the
interface
but that is decent idea to provide a hint in G2H what the issue
was. Let
me run that by the i915 GuC developers / GuC firmware team and
see what
they think.
The GuC does not do any hang analysis. So as far as GuC is
concerned, the reason is pretty much always going to be pre-emption
timeout. There are a few ways the pre-emption itself could be
triggered but basically, if GuC resets an active context then it is
because it did not pre-empt quickly enough when requested.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com>
Cc: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 12
+++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
index 97311119da6f..51512123dc1a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include "gt/intel_context.h"
#include "gt/intel_engine_pm.h"
#include "gt/intel_engine_heartbeat.h"
+#include "gt/intel_engine_user.h"
#include "gt/intel_gpu_commands.h"
#include "gt/intel_gt.h"
#include "gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.h"
@@ -3934,9 +3935,18 @@ static void capture_error_state(struct
intel_guc *guc,
{
struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
- struct intel_engine_cs *engine =
__context_to_physical_engine(ce);
+ struct intel_engine_cs *engine = ce->engine;
intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
+ if (intel_engine_is_virtual(engine)) {
+ drm_notice(&i915->drm, "%s class, engines 0x%x; GuC
engine reset\n",
+ intel_engine_class_repr(engine->class),
+ engine->mask);
+ engine = guc_virtual_get_sibling(engine, 0);
+ } else {
+ drm_notice(&i915->drm, "%s GuC engine reset\n",
engine->name);
Probably include the guc_id of the context too then?
Is the guc id stable and useful on its own - who would be the user?
The GuC id is the only thing that matters when trying to correlate
KMD activity with a GuC log. So while it might not be of any use or
interest to an end user, it is extremely important and useful to a
kernel developer attempting to debug an issue. And that includes
bug reports from end users that are hard to repro given that the
standard error capture will include the GuC log.
On the topic of GuC log - is there a tool in IGT (or will be) which
will parse the bit saved in the error capture or how is that
supposed to be used?
Nope.
However, Alan is currently working on supporting the GuC error
capture mechanism. Prior to sending the reset notification to the
KMD, the GuC will save a whole bunch of register state to a memory
buffer and send a notification to the KMD that this is available.
When we then get the actual reset notification, we need to match the
two together and include a parsed, human readable version of the
GuC's capture state buffer in the sysfs error log output.
The GuC log should not be involved in this process. And note that any
register dumps in the GuC log are limited in scope and only enabled
at higher verbosity levels. Whereas, the official state capture is
based on a register list provided by the KMD and is available
irrespective of debug CONFIG settings, verbosity levels, etc.
Hm why should GuC log not be involved now? I thought earlier you said:
"""
And that includes bug reports from end users that are hard to repro
given that the standard error capture will include the GuC log.
"""
Hence I thought there would be a tool in IGT which would parse the
part saved inside the error capture.
Different things.
The GuC log is not involved in capturing hardware register state and
reporting that as part of the sysfs error capture that user's can read
out. The GuC needs to do the state capture for us if it is doing the
reset, but it is provided via a dedicated state capture API. There
should be no requirement to set GuC log sizes/verbosity levels or to
decode and parse the GuC log just to get the engine register state at
the time of the hang.
On the other hand, the GuC log is useful for debugging certain issues
and it is included automatically in the sysfs error capture along with
all the other hardware and software state that we save.
There is intended to be a publicly released tool to decode the GuC log
into a human readable format. So end users will be able to see what
engine scheduling decisions were taken prior to the hang, for example.
Unfortunately, that is not yet ready for release for a number of
reasons. I don't know whether that would be released as part of the IGT
suite or in some other manner.
Also, note that GuC really resets contexts rather than engines.
What it reports back to i915 on a reset is simply the GuC id of the
context. It is up to i915 to work back from that to determine
engine instances/classes if required. And in the case of a virtual
context, it is impossible to extract the actual instance number. So
your above print about resetting all instances within the virtual
engine mask is incorrect/misleading. The reset would have been
applied to one and only one of those engines. If you really need to
know exactly which engine was poked, you need to look inside the
GuC log.
I think I understood that part. :) It wasn't my intent to imply in
the message multiple engines have been reset, but in the case of
veng, log the class and mask and the fact there was an engine reset
(singular). Clearer message can probably be written.
However, the follow up point is to ask why you need to report the
exact class/instance? The end user doesn't care about which
specific engine got reset. They only care that their context was
reset. Even a KMD developer doesn't really care unless the concern
is about a hardware bug rather than a software bug.
I was simply aligning both backends to log as similar information as
possible. Information is there, just not logged.
Concerning the wider topic, my thinking is end user is mainly
interested to know there are any engine resets happening (to tie
with the experience of UI/video glitching or whatever). Going for
deeper analysis than that is probably beyond the scope of the kernel
log and indeed error capture territory.
I would still say that the important information is which context was
killed not which engine. Sure, knowing the engine is better than
nothing but if we can report something more useful then why not?
Make it so. :)
My view is that the current message is indeed woefully
uninformative. However, it is more important to be reporting
context identification than engine instances. So sure, add the
engine instance description but also add something specific to the
ce as well. Ideally (for me) the GuC id and maybe something else
that uniquely identifies the context in KMD land for when not using
GuC?
Not sure we need to go that far at this level, but even if we do it
could be a follow up to add new data to both backends. Not sure yet
I care enough to drive this. My patch was simply a reaction to
noticing there is zero information currently logged while debugging
some DG2 hangs.
In terms of just reporting that a reset occurred, we already have the
'GPU HANG: ecode 12:1:fbffffff, in testfw_app [8177]' message. The
ecode is a somewhat bizarre value but it does act as a 'something
went wrong, your system is not happy' type message. Going beyond
that, I think context identification is the next most useful thing to
add.
But if you aren't even getting the 'GPU HANG' message then it sounds
like something is broken with what we already have. So we should fix
that as a first priority. If that message isn't appearing then it
means there was no error capture so adding extra info to the capture
won't help!
The issue I have is that "GPU HANG ecode" messages are always "all
zeros". It thought that was because GuC error capture was not there,
but maybe its something else.
Hmm. All zeros including the platform and engine class part or just the
instdone part?
The instdone value is engine register state and will have been cleared
before i915 can read it if the reset was handled by GuC. That comes
under the heading of state we need the new error capture API for.
However, the context should be correctly identified as should the
platform/engine class.
Currently, the recommended w/a is to set i915.reset=1 when debugging a
hang issue. That will disable GuC based resets and fall back to old
school i915 based (but full GT not engine) resets. And that means that
i915 will be able to read the engine state prior to the reset happening
and thus produce a valid error capture / GPU HANG message.
John.
Regards,
Tvrtko
