On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 02:15:35 -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 15/04/2022 01:25, Ashutosh Dixit wrote: > > At present i915 does not fetch busyness information from GuC, resulting in > > incorrect busyness values in fdinfo. Because engine information is coupled > > with busyness in fdinfo, skip showing client engine information in fdinfo > > with GuC submission till fetching busyness is supported in the i915 GuC > > submission backend. > > > > v2 (Daniele): > > Make commit title and description more precise > > Add FIXME with brief description at code change > > s/intel_guc_submission_is_used/intel_uc_uses_guc_submission/ > > > > v3 (Daniele): > > Drop FIXME in comment > > > > Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/5564 > > Fixes: 055634e4b62f ("drm/i915: Expose client engine utilisation via fdinfo") > > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c | 6 +++++- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c > > index e539f6b23060..475a6f824cad 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c > > @@ -145,7 +145,11 @@ void i915_drm_client_fdinfo(struct seq_file *m, struct file *f) > > PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn), PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn)); > > seq_printf(m, "drm-client-id:\t%u\n", client->id); > > - if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 8) > > + /* > > + * Temporarily skip showing client engine information with GuC submission till > > + * fetching engine busyness is implemented in the GuC submission backend > > + */ > > + if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 8 || intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(&i915->gt0.uc)) > > return; > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(uabi_class_names); i++) > > Thanks for fixing this while I was away. It was a simple miss, nothing > sinister. In terms of mention of "garbage" numbers being reported - were > they actually garbage or simply always zero? Ah, you are referring to what I wrote in the bug. Actually I didn't check the values myself but was told we were displaying "garbage" values (or at least I interpreted it that way, and garbage meaning not just zero). But looking now at IGT outputs from that time appears the values were just zero :/ https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11503/re-adlp-pub1/igt@drm_fdinfo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I think we could even have left zero values as is except that we'd have to fix the IGT failure. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks. -- Ashutosh
