Hi Steve,
There are two bailing out points in panfrost_job_hw_submit(): one is the error path beginning from pm_runtime_get_sync(), the other one is the error path beginning from WARN_ON() in the if statement. The pm imbalance fixed in this patch is between these two paths. I think the caller of panfrost_job_hw_submit() cannot distinguish this imbalance outside this function.
panfrost_job_timedout() calls pm_runtime_put_noidle() for every job it finds, but all jobs are added to the pfdev->jobs just before calling panfrost_job_hw_submit(). Therefore I think the imbalance still exists. But I'm not very sure if we should add pm_runtime_put on the error path after pm_runtime_get_sync(), or remove pm_runtime_put one the error path after WARN_ON().
As for the problem about panfrost_devfreq_record_busy(), this may be a new bug and requires independent patch to fix it.
Regards, Dinghao
On 20/05/2020 12:05, Dinghao Liu wrote:
pm_runtime_get_sync() increments the runtime PM usage counter even the call returns an error code. Thus a pairing decrement is needed on the error handling path to keep the counter balanced.
Signed-off-by: Dinghao Liu dinghao.liu@zju.edu.cn
Actually I think we have the opposite problem. To be honest we don't handle this situation very well. By the time panfrost_job_hw_submit() is called the job has already been added to the pfdev->jobs array, so it's considered submitted even if it never actually lands on the hardware. So in the case of this function bailing out early we will then (eventually) hit a timeout and trigger a GPU reset.
panfrost_job_timedout() iterates through the pfdev->jobs array and calls pm_runtime_put_noidle() for each job it finds. So there's no inbalance here that I can see.
Have you actually observed the situation where pm_runtime_get_sync() returns a failure?
HOWEVER, it appears that by bailing out early the call to panfrost_devfreq_record_busy() is never made, which as far as I can see means that there may be an extra call to panfrost_devfreq_record_idle() when the jobs have timed out. Which could underflow the counter.
But equally looking at panfrost_job_timedout(), we only call panfrost_devfreq_record_idle() *once* even though multiple jobs might be processed.
There's a completely untested patch below which in theory should fix that...
Steve
----8<--- diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c index 7914b1570841..f9519afca29d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_job.c @@ -145,6 +145,8 @@ static void panfrost_job_hw_submit(struct panfrost_job *job, int js) u64 jc_head = job->jc; int ret;
- panfrost_devfreq_record_busy(pfdev);
- ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(pfdev->dev); if (ret < 0) return;
@@ -155,7 +157,6 @@ static void panfrost_job_hw_submit(struct panfrost_job *job, int js) }
cfg = panfrost_mmu_as_get(pfdev, &job->file_priv->mmu);
panfrost_devfreq_record_busy(pfdev);
job_write(pfdev, JS_HEAD_NEXT_LO(js), jc_head & 0xFFFFFFFF); job_write(pfdev, JS_HEAD_NEXT_HI(js), jc_head >> 32);
@@ -410,12 +411,12 @@ static void panfrost_job_timedout(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job) for (i = 0; i < NUM_JOB_SLOTS; i++) { if (pfdev->jobs[i]) { pm_runtime_put_noidle(pfdev->dev);
panfrost_devfreq_record_idle(pfdev); pfdev->jobs[i] = NULL;
panfrost_devfreq_record_idle(pfdev); panfrost_device_reset(pfdev);
for (i = 0; i < NUM_JOB_SLOTS; i++)