Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <5262c73e-e77c-91f7-e49e-a9c3571e2cc9@mailbox.org>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:14:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: Mark contexts guilty for any reset type
Content-Language: de-CH-frami, en-CA
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?TWFyZWsgT2zFocOhaw==?= <maraeo@gmail.com>
Cc:     Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer <pierre-eric.pelloux-prayer@amd.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Almeida?= <andrealmeid@igalia.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "Tuikov, Luben" <Luben.Tuikov@amd.com>,
        amd-gfx mailing list <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        kernel-dev@igalia.com,
        "Deucher, Alexander" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
References: <20230424014324.218531-1-andrealmeid@igalia.com>
 <d7264c5a-29b4-0fb3-153b-673a8a73d635@amd.com>
 <CAAxE2A6Soq28ACV-m1OzG8CA-_VWp+N2wapsABzm2Nda=Qe+yA@mail.gmail.com>
 <784561bb-0937-befc-3774-892d6f6a4318@mailbox.org>
 <CAAxE2A6iuuVA7zjHM8YcTGMpEWuYV=hGRR1YW6W-qXHwAg9w7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <19406ec5-79d6-e9e6-fbdd-eb2f4a872fc4@amd.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= <michel.daenzer@mailbox.org>
In-Reply-To: <19406ec5-79d6-e9e6-fbdd-eb2f4a872fc4@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/25/23 14:08, Christian König wrote:
> Well signaling that something happened is not the question. We do this for both soft as well as hard resets.
> 
> The question is if errors result in blocking further submissions with the same context or not.
> 
> In case of a hard reset and potential loss of state we have to kill the context, otherwise a follow up submission would just lockup the hardware once more.
> 
> In case of a soft reset I think we can keep the context alive, this way even applications without robustness handling can keep work.
> 
> You potentially still get some corruption, but at least not your compositor killed.

Right, and if there is corruption, the user can restart the session.


Maybe a possible compromise could be making soft resets fatal if user space enabled robustness for the context, and non-fatal if not.


> Am 25.04.23 um 13:07 schrieb Marek Olšák:
>> That supposedly depends on the compositor. There may be compositors for very specific cases (e.g. Steam Deck) that handle resets very well, and those would like to be properly notified of all resets because that's how they get the best outcome, e.g. no corruption. A soft reset that is unhandled by userspace may result in persistent corruption.


-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer            |                  https://redhat.com
Libre software enthusiast          |         Mesa and Xwayland developer