Currently we can call fence_fini() twice if something goes wrong when
sending the GuC CT for the tlb request, since we signal the fence and
return an error, leading to the caller also calling fini() on the error
path in the case of stack version of the flow, which leads to an extra
rpm put() which might later cause device to enter suspend when it
shouldn't. It looks like we can just drop the fini() call since the
fence signaller side will already call this for us.
There are known mysterious splats with device going to sleep even with
an rpm ref, and this could be one candidate.
v2 (Matt B):
- Prefer warning if we detect double fini()
Fixes: f002702290 ("drm/xe: Hold a PM ref when GT TLB invalidations are inflight")
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Cc: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20241009084808.204432-3-matthew.auld@intel.com
(cherry picked from commit cfcbc0520d)
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Having two methods to wait on GT TLB invalidations is not ideal. Remove
xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_wait and only use GT TLB invalidation fences.
In addition to two methods being less than ideal, once GT TLB
invalidations are coalesced the seqno cannot be assigned during
xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_ggtt/range. Thus xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_wait
would not have a seqno to wait one. A fence however can be armed and
later signaled.
v3:
- Add explaination about coalescing to commit message
v4:
- Don't put dma fence if defined on stack (CI)
v5:
- Initialize ret to zero (CI)
v6:
- Use invalidation_fence_signal helper in tlb timeout (Matthew Auld)
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20240719172905.1527927-3-matthew.brost@intel.com
(cherry picked from commit 61ac035361)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Other layers should not be touching struct xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fence
directly, add helper for initialization.
v2:
- Add dma_fence_get and list init to xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_fence_init
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20240719172905.1527927-2-matthew.brost@intel.com
(cherry picked from commit a522b285c6)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_range accepts a start and end address rather than
a VMA. This will enable multiple VMAs to be invalidated in a single
invalidation. Update the PT layer to use this new function.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Oak Zeng <oak.zeng@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20240425045513.1913039-13-matthew.brost@intel.com
Only the GuC should be issuing TLB invalidations if it is enabled. Part
of this patch is sanitize the device on driver unload to ensure we do
not send GuC based TLB invalidations during driver unload.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
If the platform supports range based TLB invalidations use them. Hide
these details in the xe_gt_tlb_invalidation layer.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
Fence will be signaled when TLB invalidation completion.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Suggested-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
TLB invalidation is used by more than USM (page faults) so break this
code out into its own file.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
