Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Don't dump umpteen thousand requests

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

 




On 24/04/2018 09:16, Chris Wilson wrote:
If we have more than a few, possibly several thousand request in the
queue, don't show the central portion, just the first few and the last
being executed and/or queued. The first few should be enough to help
identify a problem in execution, and most often comparing the first/last
in the queue is enough to identify problems in the scheduling.

We may need some fine tuning to set MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW for common
debug scenarios, but for the moment if we can avoiding spending more
than a few seconds dumping the GPU state that will avoid a nasty
livelock (where hangcheck spends so long dumping the state, it fires
again and starts to dump the state again in parallel, ad infinitum).

v2: Remember to print last not the stale rq iter after the loop.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++---
  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c
index 66cddd059666..2398ea71e747 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c
@@ -1307,11 +1307,13 @@ void intel_engine_dump(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
  		       struct drm_printer *m,
  		       const char *header, ...)
  {
+	const int MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW = 8;
  	struct intel_breadcrumbs * const b = &engine->breadcrumbs;
  	const struct intel_engine_execlists * const execlists = &engine->execlists;
  	struct i915_gpu_error * const error = &engine->i915->gpu_error;
-	struct i915_request *rq;
+	struct i915_request *rq, *last;
  	struct rb_node *rb;
+	int count;
if (header) {
  		va_list ap;
@@ -1378,16 +1380,47 @@ void intel_engine_dump(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
  	}
spin_lock_irq(&engine->timeline->lock);
-	list_for_each_entry(rq, &engine->timeline->requests, link)
-		print_request(m, rq, "\t\tE ");
+
+	last = NULL;
+	count = 0;
+	list_for_each_entry(rq, &engine->timeline->requests, link) {
+		if (count++ < MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW - 1)
+			print_request(m, rq, "\t\tE ");
+		else
+			last = rq;

else {
	last = list_last_entry(...) ?
	break;
}

+	}
+	if (last) {
+		if (count > MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW) {
+			drm_printf(m,
+				   "\t\t...skipping %d executing requests...\n",
+				   count - MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW);
+		}
+		print_request(m, last, "\t\tE ");
+	}

Or even stuff this printf in the first loop above, under the else branch. Maybe shorter would be like this, module off by ones if I made some:

list_for_each_entry(rq, &engine->timeline->requests, link) {
	struct i915_request *pr = rq;

	if (++count > MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW) {
		pr = list_last_entry(...);
		drm_printf(m,
			   "\t\t...skipping %d executing requests...\n",
			   count - MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW);
	}
	
	print_request(m, pr, "\t\tE ");
	
	if (count > MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW)
		break;
}

+
+	last = NULL;
+	count = 0;
  	drm_printf(m, "\t\tQueue priority: %d\n", execlists->queue_priority);
  	for (rb = execlists->first; rb; rb = rb_next(rb)) {
  		struct i915_priolist *p =
  			rb_entry(rb, typeof(*p), node);
- list_for_each_entry(rq, &p->requests, sched.link)
-			print_request(m, rq, "\t\tQ ");
+		list_for_each_entry(rq, &p->requests, sched.link) {
+			if (count++ < MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW - 1)
+				print_request(m, rq, "\t\tQ ");
+			else
+				last = rq;
+		}
  	}
+	if (last) {
+		if (count > MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW) {
+			drm_printf(m,
+				   "\t\t...skipping %d queued requests...\n",
+				   count - MAX_REQUESTS_TO_SHOW);
+		}
+		print_request(m, last, "\t\tQ ");
+	}

Then I am thinking how to avoid the duplication and extract the smart printer. Macro would be easy at least, if a bit ugly.

Another idea comes to mind, but probably for the future, to merge same prio, context and strictly consecutive seqnos to a single line of output like:

 [prefix]seqno-seqno [%llx:seqno-seqno] (%u consecutive requests)

Give or take, but it will be more involved to do that.

+
  	spin_unlock_irq(&engine->timeline->lock);
spin_lock_irq(&b->rb_lock);


Looks OK in general, just please see if you like my idea to contain the logic within a single loop and maybe even move it to a macro.

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux