On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:24:30 +0200, Chris Wilson
<chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Michal Wajdeczko (2019-06-17 15:38:53)
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:09:17 +0200, Chris Wilson
<chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If the user is clearing the log buffer too slowly, we overflow. As
this
> is an expected condition, and the driver tries to handle it, reduce
the
> error message down to a notice.
>
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110817
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> index bf1446629703..e3b83ecb90b5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> @@ -208,7 +208,9 @@ static bool guc_check_log_buf_overflow(struct
> intel_guc_log *log,
> /* buffer_full_cnt is a 4 bit counter */
> log->stats[type].sampled_overflow += 16;
> }
> - DRM_ERROR_RATELIMITED("GuC log buffer overflow\n");
> +
> +
dev_notice_ratelimited(guc_to_i915(log_to_guc(log))->drm.dev,
> + "GuC log buffer overflow\n");
While this change alone is not harmful, I'm afraid that there might
be another reason why we see this message : once buffer_full_cnt is
turned on by the fw and then we reset the Guc, this field may have
stale value as it is not cleared by us/uc and we may wrongly assume
that there was an overflow.
So yay/nay on silencing the test output so I can blissfully ignore it in
bugzilla?
OK to merge, we can debug extra 'notice' logs separately
Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
