Hi Christian,
I feel with ":" it is better, because without it I found it is not easy
to interpret the printing. Moreover, it continues the format of the
former part.
It looks like this:
[ 190.686668] amdgpu 0000:03:00.0: [gfxhub0] retry page fault (src_id:0
ring:0 vmid:8 pasid:32771, for process:kfdtest pid:3273 thread:kfdtest
pid:3273)
vs without ":"
[ 190.686668] amdgpu 0000:03:00.0: [gfxhub0] retry page fault (src_id:0
ring:0 vmid:8 pasid:32771, for process kfdtest pid 3273 thread kfdtest
pid 3273)
If you are not convinced, I can change it to without ":".
Regards,
Yong
On 2019-08-12 3:12 p.m., Christian König wrote:
> Am 12.08.19 um 21:05 schrieb Zhao, Yong:
>> The printing we did for GFX9 was not propogated to GFX10 somehow, so fix
>> it now.
>>
>> Change-Id: Ic0b8381134340b83cd69c3fe186ac7a8a97b1bca
>> Signed-off-by: Yong Zhao <Yong.Zhao@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c | 5 +++-
>> 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c
>> index 4e3ac1084a94..f23be98e9897 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v10_0.c
>> @@ -140,17 +140,40 @@ static int gmc_v10_0_process_interrupt(struct
>> amdgpu_device *adev,
>> }
>> if (printk_ratelimit()) {
>> + struct amdgpu_task_info task_info;
>> +
>> + memset(&task_info, 0, sizeof(struct amdgpu_task_info));
>> + amdgpu_vm_get_task_info(adev, entry->pasid, &task_info);
>> +
>> dev_err(adev->dev,
>> - "[%s] VMC page fault (src_id:%u ring:%u vmid:%u
>> pasid:%u)\n",
>> + "[%s] page fault (src_id:%u ring:%u vmid:%u pasid:%u, "
>> + "for process:%s pid:%d thread:%s pid:%d)\n",
>> entry->vmid_src ? "mmhub" : "gfxhub",
>> entry->src_id, entry->ring_id, entry->vmid,
>> - entry->pasid);
>> - dev_err(adev->dev, " at page 0x%016llx from %d\n",
>> + entry->pasid, task_info.process_name, task_info.tgid,
>> + task_info.task_name, task_info.pid);
>> + dev_err(adev->dev, " in page starting at address 0x%016llx
>> from client %d\n",
>> addr, entry->client_id);
>> - if (!amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev))
>> + if (!amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev)) {
>> dev_err(adev->dev,
>> - "VM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS:0x%08X\n",
>> + "GCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS:0x%08X\n",
>> status);
>> + dev_err(adev->dev, "\t MORE_FAULTS: 0x%lx\n",
>> + REG_GET_FIELD(status,
>> + GCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS, MORE_FAULTS));
>> + dev_err(adev->dev, "\t WALKER_ERROR: 0x%lx\n",
>> + REG_GET_FIELD(status,
>> + GCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS, WALKER_ERROR));
>> + dev_err(adev->dev, "\t PERMISSION_FAULTS: 0x%lx\n",
>> + REG_GET_FIELD(status,
>> + GCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS, PERMISSION_FAULTS));
>> + dev_err(adev->dev, "\t MAPPING_ERROR: 0x%lx\n",
>> + REG_GET_FIELD(status,
>> + GCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS, MAPPING_ERROR));
>> + dev_err(adev->dev, "\t RW: 0x%lx\n",
>> + REG_GET_FIELD(status,
>> + GCVM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS, RW));
>> + }
>> }
>> return 0;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
>> index 296e2d982578..34c4c2d08550 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v9_0.c
>> @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ static int gmc_v9_0_process_interrupt(struct
>> amdgpu_device *adev,
>> dev_err(adev->dev,
>> "[%s] %s page fault (src_id:%u ring:%u vmid:%u "
>> - "pasid:%u, for process %s pid %d thread %s pid %d)\n",
>> + "pasid:%u, for process:%s pid:%d thread:%s pid:%d)\n",
>
> I think the text actually looks better without the ":".
>
>> hub_name, retry_fault ? "retry" : "no-retry",
>> entry->src_id, entry->ring_id, entry->vmid,
>> entry->pasid, task_info.process_name, task_info.tgid,
>> @@ -387,6 +387,9 @@ static int gmc_v9_0_process_interrupt(struct
>> amdgpu_device *adev,
>> dev_err(adev->dev, "\t MAPPING_ERROR: 0x%lx\n",
>> REG_GET_FIELD(status,
>> VM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS, MAPPING_ERROR));
>> + dev_err(adev->dev, "\t RW: 0x%lx\n",
>> + REG_GET_FIELD(status,
>> + VM_L2_PROTECTION_FAULT_STATUS, RW));
>
> That should probably be a separate patch since it is fixing gfx9.
>
> Apart from that the patch looks good to me,
> Christian.
>
>> }
>> }
>
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
