Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-11-09 11:53:53)
> On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 11:15 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Trying to enable printk debugging for GEM is fraught with the issue of
> > spam; interactions with HW are very frequent and often boring. However,
> > one instance where they are not so boring is just before a BUG; here
> > ftrace provides a facility to dump its ringbuffer on an oops. So for CI
> > let's enable trace_printk() to capture the last exchanges with HW as a
> > death rattle.
> >
> > For example,
> > [ 72.120722] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [ 72.120748] kernel BUG at drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c:905!
> > [ 72.120756] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
> > [ 72.120762] Dumping ftrace buffer:
> > [ 72.120768] ---------------------------------
> > ...
> > [ 72.200424] gem_conc-1064 0..s1 71949306us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 in: ctx=4.1, seqno=161
> > [ 72.200469] gem_conc-1064 0..s1 71949312us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 in: ctx=6.2, seqno=160
> > [ 72.200512] gem_conc-1066 1..s1 71949325us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[4/4]: status=0x00008002
> > [ 72.200555] gem_conc-1066 1..s1 71949326us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=6, seqno=160
> > [ 72.200601] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 71956923us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[5/5]: status=0x00000014
> > [ 72.200646] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 71956928us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=6, seqno=160
> > [ 72.200690] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 71956939us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 in: ctx=8.1, seqno=164
> > [ 72.200736] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 71956940us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 in: ctx=4.2, seqno=162
> > [ 72.200780] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 71956951us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[0/0]: status=0x00008002
> > [ 72.200824] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 71956951us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=4, seqno=162
> > [ 72.200867] <idle>-0 1..s1 71967999us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[1/1]: status=0x00000014
> > [ 72.200912] <idle>-0 1..s1 71968001us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=4, seqno=162
> > [ 72.200956] <idle>-0 1.Ns1 71979385us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[2/2]: status=0x00000018
> > [ 72.201001] <idle>-0 1.Ns1 71979388us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=8, seqno=164
> > [ 72.201044] gem_conc-1063 3..s1 72086825us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 in: ctx=7.1, seqno=165
> > [ 72.201088] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 72086918us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[3/3]: status=0x00000001
> > [ 72.201132] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 72086932us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 in: ctx=7.2, seqno=166
> > [ 72.201176] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 72086941us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[4/4]: status=0x00008002
> > [ 72.201219] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 72086941us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=7, seqno=166
> > [ 72.201263] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 72103855us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[5/5]: status=0x00000018
> > [ 72.201307] gem_conc-1066 1..s. 72103858us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=7, seqno=166
> > [ 72.201351] gem_conc-1064 0..s1 72116924us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 in: ctx=4.1, seqno=167
> > [ 72.201394] gem_conc-1064 0..s1 72116981us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 in: ctx=4.2, seqno=168
> > [ 72.201438] gem_conc-1066 1..s1 72117545us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[0/2]: status=0x00000012
> > [ 72.201482] gem_conc-1066 1..s1 72117547us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=4, seqno=168
> > [ 72.201526] gem_conc-1066 1..s1 72117548us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 csb[1/2]: status=0x00008002
> > [ 72.201570] gem_conc-1066 1..s1 72117548us : intel_lrc_irq_handler: bcs0 out: ctx=4, seqno=168
> > [ 72.201578] ---------------------------------
>
> You could update this example trace for v2, too.
>
> >
> > v2: Tweak the formatting to be more consistent between in/out.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.h
> > @@ -44,6 +44,12 @@
> > #define GEM_DEBUG_BUG_ON(expr)
> > #endif
> >
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_TRACE_GEM)
> > +#define GEM_TRACE(...) trace_printk(__VA_ARGS__)
> > +#else
> > +#define GEM_TRACE(...)
>
> I guess we want one of them "do { } while(false)" tricks here not to
> cause mayhem when disabled.
Ok.
> > @@ -860,6 +867,9 @@ static void intel_lrc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> > */
> >
> > status = READ_ONCE(buf[2 * head]); /* maybe mmio! */
> > + GEM_TRACE("%s csb[%d/%d]: status=0x%08x:0x%08x\n",
>
> csb[%d..%d] for better readability?
Nah, it's not a range either. I guess we document head/tail at the start
of the loop, we can include mmio vs hswp readout.
> > @@ -887,6 +897,10 @@ static void intel_lrc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> > GEM_DEBUG_BUG_ON(buf[2 * head + 1] != port->context_id);
> >
> > rq = port_unpack(port, &count);
> > + GEM_TRACE("%s out[0]: ctx=%d.%d, seqno=%x\n",
> > + engine->name,
> > + rq->ctx->hw_id, count,
>
> Make up your mind, in above GEM_TRACE count is on its own line.
Consistency, moi? Numquam!
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
