Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 08/11/2022 20:15, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/8/2022 01:01, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 19:14, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>

When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output but with
a GT# prefix on it.

Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>

The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print that, so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's not worth the effort.

Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx>

I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the maintainers to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to these new logging macro for gt code.

Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest standardising to lowercase GT in logs because:

$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c:                "failed to initialize gt%d sysfs root\n", gt->info.id); i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c:                     "failed to create gt%u RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n", i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6p sysfs files (%pe)\n", i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c:                     "failed to create gt%u RPS sysfs files (%pe)", i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c:                     "failed to create gt%u punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)", i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u throttle sysfs files (%pe)", i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n", i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c:                     "failed to add gt%u rps defaults (%pe)\n", i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(&gt->i915->drm, "gt%d: intel_pcode_init failed %d\n", id, ret); i915/i915_hwmon.c:              snprintf(ddat_gt->name, sizeof(ddat_gt->name), "i915_gt%u", i);


Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't mean that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted should be done incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be capitalised.

Okay just make it consistent then.

Besides:
grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
i915/vlv_suspend.c:             drm_err(&i915->drm, "timeout disabling GT waking\n"); i915/vlv_suspend.c:                     "timeout waiting for GT wells to go %s\n", i915/vlv_suspend.c:     drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "GT register access while GT waking disabled\n"); i915/i915_gpu_error.c:  err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n", str_yes_no(gt->awake));
i915/i915_debugfs.c:    seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on %s)", engine->name); i915/intel_uncore.c:                  "GT thread status wait timed out\n"); i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(&gt->i915->drm, "GT failed to idle: %d\n", ret); i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(&gt->i915->drm, "GT failed to idle: %d\n", ret); i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(&gt->i915->drm, "GT failed to idle: %d\n", ret); i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as "multicast" or "replicated" registers: i915/gt/selftest_rps.c:                 pr_info("%s: rps counted %d C0 cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock frequency of %uKHz\n", i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c:                   pr_err("[%s] GT is wedged!\n", engine->name);
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c:           pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c:                 "GT clock frequency changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n", i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c:           pr_err("Unable to flush GT pm before test\n");
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT failed to idle\n");
i915/i915_sysfs.c:                       "failed to register GT sysfs directory\n"); i915/intel_uncore.h:     * of the basic non-engine GT registers (referred to as "GSI" on i915/intel_uncore.h:     * newer platforms, or "GT block" on older platforms)?  If so, we'll



Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or, do we want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't have a strong opinion at the moment so I'll add some more folks to Cc.

You mean GT_ERR("msg") vs intel_gt_err("msg")? Personally, I would prefer just gt_err("msg") to keep it as close to the official drm_* versions as possible. Print lines tend to be excessively long already. Taking a 'gt' parameter instead of a '&gt->i915->drm' parameter does help with that but it seems like calling the wrapper intel_gt_* is shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. And GT_ERR vs gt_err just comes down to the fact that it is a macro wrapper and therefore is required to be in upper case.

There was a maintainer level mini-discussion on this topic which I will try to summarise.

Main contention point was the maintenance cost and generally an undesirable pattern of needing to add many subsystem/component/directory specific macros. Which then typically need extra flavours and so on. But over verbosity of the
How many versions are you expecting to add? Beyond the tile instance, what further addressing requirements are there? The card instance is already printed as part of the PCI address. The only other reason to add per component wrappers would be to wrap the mechanism for getting from some random per component object back to the intel_gt structure. But that is hardware a new issue being added by this wrapper. It is also not a requirement. Much of the code has a gt pointer already. For the parts that don't, some of it would be a trivial engine->gt type dereference, some of it is a more complex container_of type construction. But for those, the given file will already have multiple instances of that already (usually as the first or second line of the function - 'intel_gt *gt = fancy_access_method(my_obj)' so adding one or two more of those as necessary is not making the code harder to read.

code is obviously also bad, so one compromise idea was to add a macro which builds the GT string and use drm logging helpers directly. This would be something like:

 drm_err(GT_LOG("something went wrong ret=%d\n", gt), ret);
 drm_info(GT_LOG(...same...));
Seriously? As above, some of these lines are already way too long, this version makes them even longer with no obvious benefit. Worse, it makes it harder to read what is going on. It is much less intuitive to read than just replacing the drm_err itself. And having two sets of parenthesis with some parameters inside the first and some only inside the second is really horrid! Also, putting the 'gt' parameter in the middle just confuses it with the rest of the printf arguments even though there is no %d in the string for it. So now a quick glances tells you that your code is wrong because you have three format specifiers but four parameters.

Whereas, just replacing drm_err with gt_err (or GT_ERR or intel_gt_err) keeps everything else consistent. The first parameter changes from 'drm' to 'gt' but is still the master object parameter and it matches the function/macro prefix so inherently looks correct. Then you have your message plus parameters. No confusing orders, no confusing parenthesis, no excessive macro levels, no confusion at all. Just nice simple, easy to read, easy to maintain code.

I am personally okay with gt_err/GT_ERR some other folks might object though. And I can also understand the argument why it is better to not have to define gt_err, gt_warn, gt_info, gt_notice, gt_debug, gt_err_ratelimited, gt_warn_once.. and instead have only one macro.
A small set of trivial macro definitions vs a complicated and unreadable construct on every single print? Erm, isn't that the very definition of abstracting to helpers as generally required by every code review ever?

And what 'other folks might object'? People already CC'd? People outside of i915?



Because of that I was passing on to you the compromise option.

It maybe still has net space savings since we wouldn't have to be repeating the gt->i915->drm whatever and gt->info.id on every line.

You are free to try the most compact one and see how hard those objections will be.
Um. I already did. This patch. And you are the only person to have objected in any manner at all.

Where I have objected?

I was a) asking to convert all gt/ within one kernel release, b) transferring the maintainer discussion from IRC to this email chain to outlay one alternative, for which I said I could see the pros and cons of both, and c) raised the naming question early since that can usually become a churn point later on when we have large scale code transformations.

As said, FWIW you have my ack for GT_XXX naming and approach, but please do convert the whole of gt/ so we don't ship with a mish-mash of log messages.

Regards,

Tvrtko



[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux