On 12/20/2021 07:00, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 17/12/2021 16:22, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:15:53PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 14/12/2021 15:07, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Log engine resets done by the GuC firmware in the similar way it is
done
by the execlists backend.
This way we have notion of where the hangs are before the GuC gains
support for proper error capture.
Ping - any interest to log this info?
All there currently is a non-descriptive "[drm] GPU HANG: ecode
12:0:00000000".
Yea, this could be helpful. One suggestion below.
Also, will GuC be reporting the reason for the engine reset at any
point?
We are working on the error state capture, presumably the registers will
give a clue what caused the hang.
As for the GuC providing a reason, that isn't defined in the interface
but that is decent idea to provide a hint in G2H what the issue was. Let
me run that by the i915 GuC developers / GuC firmware team and see what
they think.
The GuC does not do any hang analysis. So as far as GuC is concerned,
the reason is pretty much always going to be pre-emption timeout. There
are a few ways the pre-emption itself could be triggered but basically,
if GuC resets an active context then it is because it did not pre-empt
quickly enough when requested.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
index 97311119da6f..51512123dc1a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
#include "gt/intel_context.h"
#include "gt/intel_engine_pm.h"
#include "gt/intel_engine_heartbeat.h"
+#include "gt/intel_engine_user.h"
#include "gt/intel_gpu_commands.h"
#include "gt/intel_gt.h"
#include "gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.h"
@@ -3934,9 +3935,18 @@ static void capture_error_state(struct
intel_guc *guc,
{
struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
- struct intel_engine_cs *engine =
__context_to_physical_engine(ce);
+ struct intel_engine_cs *engine = ce->engine;
intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
+ if (intel_engine_is_virtual(engine)) {
+ drm_notice(&i915->drm, "%s class, engines 0x%x; GuC engine
reset\n",
+ intel_engine_class_repr(engine->class),
+ engine->mask);
+ engine = guc_virtual_get_sibling(engine, 0);
+ } else {
+ drm_notice(&i915->drm, "%s GuC engine reset\n",
engine->name);
Probably include the guc_id of the context too then?
Is the guc id stable and useful on its own - who would be the user?
The GuC id is the only thing that matters when trying to correlate KMD
activity with a GuC log. So while it might not be of any use or interest
to an end user, it is extremely important and useful to a kernel
developer attempting to debug an issue. And that includes bug reports
from end users that are hard to repro given that the standard error
capture will include the GuC log.
Also, note that GuC really resets contexts rather than engines. What it
reports back to i915 on a reset is simply the GuC id of the context. It
is up to i915 to work back from that to determine engine
instances/classes if required. And in the case of a virtual context, it
is impossible to extract the actual instance number. So your above print
about resetting all instances within the virtual engine mask is
incorrect/misleading. The reset would have been applied to one and only
one of those engines. If you really need to know exactly which engine
was poked, you need to look inside the GuC log.
However, the follow up point is to ask why you need to report the exact
class/instance? The end user doesn't care about which specific engine
got reset. They only care that their context was reset. Even a KMD
developer doesn't really care unless the concern is about a hardware bug
rather than a software bug.
My view is that the current message is indeed woefully uninformative.
However, it is more important to be reporting context identification
than engine instances. So sure, add the engine instance description but
also add something specific to the ce as well. Ideally (for me) the GuC
id and maybe something else that uniquely identifies the context in KMD
land for when not using GuC?
John
Regards,
Tvrtko
