Re: Debugging Thinkpad T430s occasional suspend failure.

[Daniel Vetter]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> 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);
>                 }



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/