Re: Radeon regression in 6.6 kernel

[Alex Deucher]

Actually I think I see the problem.  I'll try and send out a patch
later today to test.

Alex

On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:52 PM Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:41 AM Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 2023-11-29 10:22, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 8:50 AM Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 11:45 PM Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> On 2023-11-28 17:13, Alex Deucher wrote:
> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 6:24 PM Phillip Susi <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> In that case those are the already known problems with the scheduler
> > >>>>>>> changes, aren't they?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Yes.  Those changes went into 6.7 though, not 6.6 AFAIK.  Maybe I'm
> > >>>>>> misunderstanding what the original report was actually testing.  If it
> > >>>>>> was 6.7, then try reverting:
> > >>>>>> 56e449603f0ac580700621a356d35d5716a62ce5
> > >>>>>> b70438004a14f4d0f9890b3297cd66248728546c
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> At some point it was suggested that I file a gitlab issue, but I took
> > >>>>> this to mean it was already known and being worked on.  -rc3 came out
> > >>>>> today and still has the problem.  Is there a known issue I could track?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> At this point, unless there are any objections, I think we should just
> > >>>> revert the two patches
> > >>> Uhm, no.
> > >>>
> > >>> Why "the two" patches?
> > >>>
> > >>> This email, part of this thread,
> > >>>
> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87r0kircdo.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > >>>
> > >>> clearly states that reverting *only* this commit,
> > >>> 56e449603f0ac5 drm/sched: Convert the GPU scheduler to variable number of run-queues
> > >>> *does not* mitigate the failed suspend. (Furthermore, this commit doesn't really change
> > >>> anything operational, other than using an allocated array, instead of a static one, in DRM,
> > >>> while the 2nd patch is solely contained within the amdgpu driver code.)
> > >>>
> > >>> Leaving us with only this change,
> > >>> b70438004a14f4 drm/amdgpu: move buffer funcs setting up a level
> > >>> to be at fault, as the kernel log attached in the linked email above shows.
> > >>>
> > >>> The conclusion is that only b70438004a14f4 needs reverting.
> > >>
> > >> b70438004a14f4 was a fix for 56e449603f0ac5.  Without b70438004a14f4,
> > >> 56e449603f0ac5 breaks amdgpu.
> > >
> > > We can try and re-enable it in the next kernel.  I'm just not sure
> > > we'll be able to fix this in time for 6.7 with the holidays and all
> > > and I don't want to cause a lot of scheduler churn at the end of the
> > > 6.7 cycle if we hold off and try and fix it.  Reverting seems like the
> > > best short term solution.
> >
> > A lot of subsequent code has come in since commit 56e449603f0ac5, as it opened
> > the opportunity for a 1-to-1 relationship between an entity and a scheduler.
> > (Should've always been the case, from the outset. Not sure why it was coded as
> > a fixed-size array.)
> >
> > Given that commit 56e449603f0ac5 has nothing to do with amdgpu, and the problem
> > is wholly contained in amdgpu, and no other driver has this problem, there is
> > no reason to have to "churn", i.e. go back and forth in DRM, only to cover up
> > an init bug in amdgpu. See the response I just sent in @this thread:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/05007cb0-871e-4dc7-af58-1351f4ba43e2@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> > And it's not like this issue is unknown. I first posted about it on 2023-10-16.
> >
> > Ideally, amdgpu would just fix their init code.
>
> You can't make changes to core code that break other drivers.
> Arguably 56e449603f0ac5 should not have gone in in the first place if
> it broke amdgpu.  b70438004a14f4 was the code to fix amdgpu's init
> code, but as a side effect it seems to have broken suspend for some
> users.
>
> Alex