diff mbox

Debugging Thinkpad T430s occasional suspend failure.

Message ID 20130217133814.GK5813@phenom.ffwll.local (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Daniel Vetter Feb. 17, 2013, 1:38 p.m. UTC
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >
>> > I think it's worth it to give them a heads-up already. So I've cc'd
>> > the main suspects here..
>>
>> Okay, thanks.
>>
>> >
>> > Daniel, Dave - any comments about a NULL fb in
>> > intel_choose_pipe_bpp_dither() during either suspend or resume? Some
>> > googling shows this:
>> >
>> >     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895123
>>
>> Great, yes, I'm sure that's the same (though it says "suspend"
>> and I say "resume").
>>
>> >
>> > which sounds remarkably similar, and is also during a suspend attempt
>> > (but apparently Satish got a full oops out).. Some timing race with a
>> > worker entry?
>
> Comparing Satish's backtrace and drivers/gpu/drm history, it's clear that
> the oops comes from Daniel's 3.8-rc2 45e2b5f640b3 "drm/i915: force restore
> on lid open", whose force_restore case now passes down crtc->base.fb.  But
> I wouldn't have a clue why that's usually non-NULL but occasionally NULL:
> your timing race with a worker entry, perhaps.
>
> And 45e2b5f640b3 contains a fine history of going back and forth, so I
> wouldn't want to play further with it out of ignorance - though tempted
> to replace the "if (force_restore) {" by an interim safe-seeming
> compromise of "if (force_restore && crtc->base.fb) {".

Two things to try while I try to grow a clue on what exactly is going on:

1. Related to new ACPI sleep states we've recently made the lid_notifier
locking more sound, maybe that helps:

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel/commit/?h=drm-intel-next-queued&id=b8efb17b3d687695b81485f606fc4e6c35a50f9a

2. The new i915 force restore code is indeed missing a safety check
compared to the old crtc helper based one:


The issue is that we save a pointer to the fb (since those are refcounted)
but copy the mode into the crtc struct (since modes are not refcounted).
So on restore the mode will always be non-NULL, which is wrong if the crtc
is off (and so also has a NULL fb).

The problem I have with that patch is figuring out how this ever worked. I
think I need more coffee ;-)

Cheers, Daniel

Comments

Daniel Vetter Feb. 17, 2013, 2:54 p.m. UTC | #1
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> 2. The new i915 force restore code is indeed missing a safety check
> compared to the old crtc helper based one:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 6eb3882..095094c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -9153,7 +9153,13 @@ void intel_modeset_setup_hw_state(struct drm_device *dev,
>
>         if (force_restore) {
>                 for_each_pipe(pipe) {
> -                       intel_crtc_restore_mode(dev_priv->pipe_to_crtc_mapping[pipe]);
> +                       struct drm_crtc * crtc =
> +                               dev_priv->pipe_to_crtc_mapping[pipe];
> +
> +                       if (!crtc->enabled)
> +                               continue;
> +
> +                       intel_crtc_restore_mode(crtc);
>                 }
>
>                 i915_redisable_vga(dev);
>
> The issue is that we save a pointer to the fb (since those are refcounted)
> but copy the mode into the crtc struct (since modes are not refcounted).
> So on restore the mode will always be non-NULL, which is wrong if the crtc
> is off (and so also has a NULL fb).
>
> The problem I have with that patch is figuring out how this ever worked. I
> think I need more coffee ;-)

Ok, coffee seems to be working now. I think the above diff shouldn't
change anything, since we already have a crtc->enabled check in
intel_modeset_affected_pipes in intel_display.c. Still would be good
if you can prove this one way or the other.

For those wondering why this check is buried this deeply: We're in the
middle of a massive rework of our modeset code, moving from
one-crtc-at-a-time to global modeset. We need that to implement some
fancy features like fastboot or better handling of global resource
constraints (shared clocks, bw limits, ...). In the new world we set
up the desired state in staging pointers/data structures. Then the
modeset code diffs that with the current state and computes the best
way to do the transition. But since we're still converting code some
pieces pass in the new state explicitly, but lower levels then ignore
some pieces when not required to reach the desired state.

The new lid restore code relies on that by updating the tracked hw
state from the real hw one and restoring the last desired state (which
is still around from the last modeset call).

Cheers, Daniel
Daniel Vetter Feb. 17, 2013, 5:28 p.m. UTC | #2
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it's worth it to give them a heads-up already. So I've cc'd
>> >> > the main suspects here..
>> >>
>> >> Okay, thanks.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Daniel, Dave - any comments about a NULL fb in
>> >> > intel_choose_pipe_bpp_dither() during either suspend or resume? Some
>> >> > googling shows this:
>> >> >
>> >> >     https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895123
>> >>
>> >> Great, yes, I'm sure that's the same (though it says "suspend"
>> >> and I say "resume").
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > which sounds remarkably similar, and is also during a suspend attempt
>> >> > (but apparently Satish got a full oops out).. Some timing race with a
>> >> > worker entry?
>> >
>> > Comparing Satish's backtrace and drivers/gpu/drm history, it's clear that
>> > the oops comes from Daniel's 3.8-rc2 45e2b5f640b3 "drm/i915: force restore
>> > on lid open", whose force_restore case now passes down crtc->base.fb.  But
>> > I wouldn't have a clue why that's usually non-NULL but occasionally NULL:
>> > your timing race with a worker entry, perhaps.
>> >
>> > And 45e2b5f640b3 contains a fine history of going back and forth, so I
>> > wouldn't want to play further with it out of ignorance - though tempted
>> > to replace the "if (force_restore) {" by an interim safe-seeming
>> > compromise of "if (force_restore && crtc->base.fb) {".
>
> My suggestion there in the line above was stupidly wrong :(
>
>>
>> Two things to try while I try to grow a clue on what exactly is going on:
>
> Thank you.
>
> By the way, I hope you've looked back through this thread, and realize
> that Dave and I both had ThinkPad T4?0s suspend/resume display problems,
> but they've gone off in different directions: so a lot of the discussion
> comes from Dave having CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_DELAY, and has nothing to do with
> what we now know to be my oops in i915/intel_display.c.

Oh, I haven't read the earlier parts of the thread, but agree that
it's a completely different bug: Different chipset (this matters
massively for gpus usually), Dave's issue happens on -rc1 (which
doesn't contain the offending lid_notifier patch yet) and seems to die
someplace completely else than your box.

>> 1. Related to new ACPI sleep states we've recently made the lid_notifier
>> locking more sound, maybe that helps:
>>
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~danvet/drm-intel/commit/?h=drm-intel-next-queued&id=b8efb17b3d687695b81485f606fc4e6c35a50f9a
>
> Looks like it may be relevant, but I'll ignore it for now:
> preferring first to test the more minimal safety you suggest below.
>
>>
>> 2. The new i915 force restore code is indeed missing a safety check
>> compared to the old crtc helper based one:
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> index 6eb3882..095094c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> @@ -9153,7 +9153,13 @@ void intel_modeset_setup_hw_state(struct drm_device *dev,
>>
>>       if (force_restore) {
>>               for_each_pipe(pipe) {
>> -                     intel_crtc_restore_mode(dev_priv->pipe_to_crtc_mapping[pipe]);
>> +                     struct drm_crtc * crtc =
>> +                             dev_priv->pipe_to_crtc_mapping[pipe];
>> +
>> +                     if (!crtc->enabled)
>> +                             continue;
>> +
>> +                     intel_crtc_restore_mode(crtc);
>>               }
>>
>>               i915_redisable_vga(dev);
>
> I see your followup, where you observe that intel_modeset_affected_pipes()
> should already have made this check; but you do say it would still be good
> to prove one way or the other, so I'll run from now with the patch below.
>
> Note that we haven't got to worrying about what will be in 3.9 yet
> (linux-next tells me to expect hangcheck timer problems): it's Linus's
> current git for 3.8 final that we're working on at present.

Right, patch was on top of -next, but there shouldn't be any
(functional) differences in this area compared to 3.8. The first part
of the big rework landed in 3.7 and contained the crtc->enabled check
from day one.

For the hangcheck issue in -next, that might be a new one. If you
catch it again, can you please grab the i915_error_state from debugfs
and throw it over to me? That should be enough for basic analysis.

> And since quick resumes have always worked for me, it's only occasionally
> that a long suspend (e.g. overnight) fails for me in this way, so I won't
> be able to report success for several days - but failure may come sooner.
>
> And, it being very tiresome to debug when it does fail, I have inserted
> WARN_ONs and more safety: here's what I'm running with now.

Yep, that should be interesting once it catches something. For more
debug noise can you set drm.debug=0xe (should work even when setting
it in /sys/modules/drm/parameters at runtime). That spills tons of
stuff into dmesg which will come handy in reconstructing how things
fell apart. Presuming your machines survives a bad resume and you can
grab dmesg, ofc.

Thanks, Daniel

> --- 3.8-rc7/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c        2013-01-17 20:06:11.384002362 -0800
> +++ linux/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c  2013-02-17 07:50:28.012075150 -0800
> @@ -4156,7 +4156,9 @@ static bool intel_choose_pipe_bpp_dither
>          * also stays within the max display bpc discovered above.
>          */
>
> -       switch (fb->depth) {
> +       if (WARN_ON(!fb))
> +               bpc = 8;
> +       else switch (fb->depth) {
>         case 8:
>                 bpc = 8; /* since we go through a colormap */
>                 break;
> @@ -9302,6 +9304,10 @@ void intel_modeset_setup_hw_state(struct
>         if (force_restore) {
>                 for_each_pipe(pipe) {
>                         crtc = to_intel_crtc(dev_priv->pipe_to_crtc_mapping[pipe]);
> +                       if (WARN_ON(!crtc->base.enabled))
> +                               continue;
> +                       if (WARN_ON(!crtc->base.fb))
> +                               continue;
>                         intel_set_mode(&crtc->base, &crtc->base.mode,
>                                        crtc->base.x, crtc->base.y, crtc->base.fb);
>                 }
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
index 6eb3882..095094c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
@@ -9153,7 +9153,13 @@  void intel_modeset_setup_hw_state(struct drm_device *dev,
 
 	if (force_restore) {
 		for_each_pipe(pipe) {
-			intel_crtc_restore_mode(dev_priv->pipe_to_crtc_mapping[pipe]);
+			struct drm_crtc * crtc =
+				dev_priv->pipe_to_crtc_mapping[pipe];
+
+			if (!crtc->enabled)
+				continue;
+
+			intel_crtc_restore_mode(crtc);
 		}
 
 		i915_redisable_vga(dev);