On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Deucher, Alexander
<alexander.deuc...@amd.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Shuah Khan [mailto:shuahk...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 4:40 PM
>> To: Deucher, Alexander
>> Cc: Linus Torvalds; Linux Kernel Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: Linux 3.8-rc4
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Deucher, Alexander
>> <alexander.deuc...@amd.com> wrote:
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Shuah Khan [mailto:shuahk...@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:11 PM
>> >> To: Deucher, Alexander
>> >> Cc: Linus Torvalds; Linux Kernel Mailing List
>> >> Subject: Re: Linux 3.8-rc4
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:05 AM, Deucher, Alexander
>> >> <alexander.deuc...@amd.com> wrote:
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> I was out sick for a few days and finally picked this bisect backup
>> >> >> again. I started at 3.7 tag instead of 3.8-rc1 that I did in the past
>> >> >> and also did bisect at drivers/gpu/drm/radeon instead. Here are the
>> >> >> results:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 6253e4c75d96006c06b9ac8f417eba873de2497b is the first bad commit
>> >> >> commit 6253e4c75d96006c06b9ac8f417eba873de2497b
>> >> >> Author: Alex Deucher <alexander.deuc...@amd.com>
>> >> >> Date:   Wed Dec 12 14:30:32 2012 -0500
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     drm/radeon: improve mc_stop/mc_resume on r5xx-r7xx
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     Along the same lines of what was done for evergreen+
>> >> >>     in the last kernel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>     Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deuc...@amd.com>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> git bisect log attached.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Try the attached patch.  I think it should fix the issue.  I just 
>> >> > applied a
>> similar
>> >> patch for newer asics.
>> >> >
>> >> > Alex
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I reverted 6253e4c75d96006c06b9ac8f417eba873de2497b and DMAR
>> faults
>> >> went away. Undid the revert and applied your new patch. DMAR faults
>> >> are back again.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [   25.158653] [drm] PCIE GART of 512M enabled (table at
>> >> 0x0000000000040000).
>> >> [   25.158715] radeon 0000:01:00.0: WB enabled
>> >> [   25.158719] radeon 0000:01:00.0: fence driver on ring 0 use gpu
>> >> addr 0x0000000008000c00 and cpu addr 0xffff88002f143c00
>> >> [   25.158721] radeon 0000:01:00.0: fence driver on ring 3 use gpu
>> >> addr 0x0000000008000c0c and cpu addr 0xffff88002f143c0c
>> >>
>> >> A few observations and questions about r600_startup() code sequence:
>> >>
>> >> I notice DMAR faults right after
>> >>
>> >> [drm] Loading RV620 Microcode message which is from
>> >> r600_init_microcode(). This routine does a series of
>> >> request_firmware() calls. btw. don't see release_firmware() calls in
>> >> regular code path, only from error legs in r600_init_microcode().
>> >>
>> >> However, this routine doesn't do any loading yet. When this routine
>> >> returns, I am assuming request_firmware() step isn't complete yet
>> >> based on my reading request_firmware() interface. At this point
>> >> r600_startup() keeps chugging along, and does r600_mc_program() which
>> >> in turn calls rv515_mc_stop() which was changed with the
>> >> 6253e4c75d96006c06b9ac8f417eba873de2497b commit.
>> >>
>> >> I am thinking the changes somehow eliminated a wait or delay that used
>> >> be there for request_firmware() step to complete (?)
>> >>
>> >> I can see from dmesg that the faults occur right after:
>> >>
>> >> r600_init_microcode(rdev);
>> >>
>> >> and stop before r600_pcie_gart_enable()
>> >
>> > r600_init_microcode() doesn't actually touch the hardware it just calls
>> request_firmware() to fetch the microcode images from disk.  The microcode
>> doesn't get loaded onto the hardware until r600_cp_load_microcode() much
>> later in the function.  I don't think the microcode has anything to do with 
>> this.
>> >
>> > rv515_mc_stop() stops GPU memory clients (e.g., the displays) and blacks
>> out the GPU memory controller so that we can change the location of VRAM
>> within the GPU's address space.  If one of the display controllers memory
>> request stop requests takes too long to go through for some reason, it's
>> possible that the display hardware may attempt to read from a GPU memory
>> location no-longer backed by vram (since we changed the location of vram in
>> r600_mc_program()) momentarily until the stop request goes through.  Does
>> the attached updated version of the patch help?  Alternatively, you can try
>> adding delays to the end of rv515_mc_stop() and see if that helps.
>> >
>> > Alex
>> >
>>
>> This v2 patch didn't help. I added  mdelay(15); at the end of
>> rv515_mc_stop() on top of this v2 patch and that fixed the problem.
>> mdelay(15) is a bit much I am sure. Shouldn't rv515_mc_wait_for_idle()
>> take care of the delay? It waits for idle usec_timeout?
>
>
>  It only waits that long if the MC never goes idle.  If the MC happens to be 
> idle at the time, it will return immediately.  Does the attached patch fix 
> the issue?  It waits for the update pending bit to clear in addition to 
> waiting for the next frame.
>
> Alex
>
No. This patch didn't fix the problem.

-- Shuah
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to