search for: radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs

...e are so many places that could potentially wait, like radeon_ib_get can call radeon_sa_bo_new which can do a wait, or radeon_ring_alloc that can wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. >>>> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. >>> I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock? >> Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the same effect as what we are doing right now. > Yeah, excep...

...eset, when there are so many places that could potentially wait, like radeon_ib_get can call radeon_sa_bo_new which can do a wait, or radeon_ring_alloc that can wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. Christian.

...hen there are so many places that could potentially wait, like radeon_ib_get can call radeon_sa_bo_new which can do a wait, or radeon_ring_alloc that can wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. >> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. > I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock? Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the same effect as what we are doing right now. Christian. > > ~Maarten...

...en there are so many places that could potentially wait, like radeon_ib_get can call radeon_sa_bo_new which can do a wait, or radeon_ring_alloc that can wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. > > The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock? ~Maarten

...there are so many places that could potentially wait, like radeon_ib_get can call radeon_sa_bo_new which can do a wait, or radeon_ring_alloc that can wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. >>> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and radeon_ring_restore. >> I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do you have to retake the exclusive lock? > > Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the same effect as what we are doing right now. Yeah, except for th...

> It'a pain to deal with gpu reset. Yeah, well that's nothing new. > I've now tried other solutions but that would mean reverting to the old style during gpu lockup recovery, and only running the delayed work when !lockup. > But this meant that the timeout was useless to add. I think the cleanest is keeping the v2 patch, because potentially any waiting code can be called

...); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c index 697add2cd4e3..21efd32d07ee 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c @@ -1637,6 +1637,11 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); /* block TTM */ resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); + + /* kill all the hangcheck tests too */ + for (i = 0; i < RADEON_NUM_RINGS; ++i) + radeon_fence_cancel_delayed_check(rdev, i); + radeon_pm_suspend(rdev); radeon_suspend(rdev); diff --git a/driv...

...ic > * > @@ -1624,6 +1673,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) > > int i, r; > int resched; > + uint32_t sw_mask; > > down_write(&rdev->exclusive_lock); > > @@ -1637,6 +1687,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) > radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); > /* block TTM */ > resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); > + sw_mask = radeon_gpu_mask_sw_irq(rdev); > radeon_pm_suspend(rdev); > radeon_suspend(rdev); > > @@ -1686,13 +1737,20 @@ retry: > radeon_pm_resume(rdev); > drm_help...

...u/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c > index 697add2cd4e3..21efd32d07ee 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_device.c > @@ -1637,6 +1637,11 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) > radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); > /* block TTM */ > resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); > + > + /* kill all the hangcheck tests too */ > + for (i = 0; i < RADEON_NUM_RINGS; ++i) > + radeon_fence_cancel_delayed_check(rdev, i); > + > radeon_pm_suspend(rdev);...

...lags); +} + /** * radeon_gpu_reset - reset the asic * @@ -1624,6 +1673,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) int i, r; int resched; + uint32_t sw_mask; down_write(&rdev->exclusive_lock); @@ -1637,6 +1687,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); /* block TTM */ resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); + sw_mask = radeon_gpu_mask_sw_irq(rdev); radeon_pm_suspend(rdev); radeon_suspend(rdev); @@ -1686,13 +1737,20 @@ retry: radeon_pm_resume(rdev); drm_helper_resume_force_mode(rdev->ddev); + rad...

...lags); +} + /** * radeon_gpu_reset - reset the asic * @@ -1624,6 +1673,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) int i, r; int resched; + uint32_t sw_mask; down_write(&rdev->exclusive_lock); @@ -1637,6 +1687,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); /* block TTM */ resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); + sw_mask = radeon_gpu_mask_sw_irq(rdev); radeon_pm_suspend(rdev); radeon_suspend(rdev); @@ -1686,13 +1737,20 @@ retry: radeon_pm_resume(rdev); drm_helper_resume_force_mode(rdev->ddev); + rad...

Am 19.05.2014 15:35, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: > op 19-05-14 14:30, Christian K?nig schreef: >> Am 19.05.2014 12:10, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: >>> op 19-05-14 10:27, Christian K?nig schreef: >>>> Am 19.05.2014 10:00, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: >>>> [SNIP] >>>> The problem here is that the whole approach collides with the way >>>>

...+ /** * radeon_gpu_reset - reset the asic * @@ -1582,6 +1631,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) int i, r; int resched; + uint32_t sw_mask; down_write(&rdev->exclusive_lock); @@ -1595,6 +1645,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); /* block TTM */ resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); + sw_mask = radeon_gpu_mask_sw_irq(rdev); radeon_pm_suspend(rdev); radeon_suspend(rdev); @@ -1644,13 +1695,20 @@ retry: radeon_pm_resume(rdev); drm_helper_resume_force_mode(rdev->ddev);...

...> @@ -1582,6 +1631,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) > > int i, r; > int resched; > + uint32_t sw_mask; > > down_write(&rdev->exclusive_lock); > > @@ -1595,6 +1645,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) > radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); > /* block TTM */ > resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); > + sw_mask = radeon_gpu_mask_sw_irq(rdev); > radeon_pm_suspend(rdev); > radeon_suspend(rdev); > > @@ -1644,13 +1695,20 @@ retry: > radeon_pm_resume(rdev)...

Am 19.05.2014 10:00, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: > op 15-05-14 18:13, Christian K?nig schreef: >> Am 15.05.2014 17:58, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: >>> op 15-05-14 17:48, Christian K?nig schreef: >>>> Am 15.05.2014 16:18, schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: >>>>> op 15-05-14 15:19, Christian K?nig schreef: >>>>>> Am 15.05.2014 15:04, schrieb

...+ /** * radeon_gpu_reset - reset the asic * @@ -1582,6 +1631,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) int i, r; int resched; + uint32_t sw_mask; down_write(&rdev->exclusive_lock); @@ -1595,6 +1645,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); /* block TTM */ resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); + sw_mask = radeon_gpu_mask_sw_irq(rdev); radeon_pm_suspend(rdev); radeon_suspend(rdev); @@ -1644,6 +1695,7 @@ retry: radeon_pm_resume(rdev); drm_helper_resume_force_mode(rdev->ddev);...

...> @@ -1582,6 +1631,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) > > int i, r; > int resched; > + uint32_t sw_mask; > > down_write(&rdev->exclusive_lock); > > @@ -1595,6 +1645,7 @@ int radeon_gpu_reset(struct radeon_device *rdev) > radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs(rdev); > /* block TTM */ > resched = ttm_bo_lock_delayed_workqueue(&rdev->mman.bdev); > + sw_mask = radeon_gpu_mask_sw_irq(rdev); > radeon_pm_suspend(rdev); > radeon_suspend(rdev); > > @@ -1644,6 +1695,7 @@ retry: > radeon_pm_resume(rdev);...

fence_is_signaled callback should support being run in atomic context, but not in irq context. Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at canonical.com> --- include/linux/fence.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/fence.h b/include/linux/fence.h index d174585b874b..c1a4519ba2f5 100644 ---

This series applies on top of the driver-core-next branch of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/driver-core.git Before converting ttm to the new fence interface I had to fix some drivers to require a reservation before poking with fence_obj. After flipping the switch RCU becomes available instead, and the extra reservations can be dropped again. :-) I've done at least basic