On 28/09/2023 22:31, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 09:16:23AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 27/09/2023 21:13, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 02:44:28PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
We have a nice error message displayed when an user with insufficient
permissions tries to run the tool, but that got lost while Meteorlake
support was added. Bring it back in.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/intel_gpu_top.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/intel_gpu_top.c b/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
index 87e9681e53b4..e01355f90458 100644
--- a/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
+++ b/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
@@ -554,9 +554,11 @@ static int get_num_gts(uint64_t type)
close(fd);
}
- assert(!errno || errno == ENOENT);
- assert(cnt > 0);
- errno = 0;
+
+ if (!cnt)
+ cnt = errno;
+ else
+ errno = 0;
ENOENT is the only way this logic is checking for num_gts.
In this case error is propagated only if cnt == 0. What if cnt=1 and
we get an error (other than ENOENT)? Should we ignore that?
If cnt >= 1 then at least one tile was found so the errno happened
while probing for further tiles. So on single tile parts it can be
ignored.
I am actually only referring to single tile parts. The for loop iterates
over MAX_GTs (4), so I am expecting an ENOENT from a single tile part
when cnt >= 1. Anything else is an error/failure that we should flag.
Yes I think that worked fine in v1. Only thing I did not do is bother to
pass on the unexpected errno on multi-tile. Anyway, I have sent v2 with
the below condition.
Regards,
Tvrtko
On multi-tile parts it cannot really happen, or even if it happens
situation would simply be "why is only one tile showing". If we want
to cover this impossible/unlikely case then maybe like this:
if (!cnt || (errno && errno != ENOENT))
cnt = -errno;
If you agree to the above logic, then this condition should do the trick.
Regards,
Umesh
I had something like this in mind for the regression (and sorry this
fell through the cracks)
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/541406/?series=118973&rev=1
Oh back in June!
I think yours work too, in which case it's a matter of a style choice
with which one to go. I don't have a strong preference - above would
be a bit more compact, while I think it still succinctly expresses the
failure condition ("nothing found or unexpected error while probing
for remote tiles").
Regards,
Tvrtko
Regards,
Umesh
return cnt;
}
@@ -590,6 +592,8 @@ static int pmu_init(struct engines *engines)
engines->fd = -1;
engines->num_counters = 0;
engines->num_gts = get_num_gts(type);
+ if (engines->num_gts <= 0)
+ return -1;
engines->irq.config = I915_PMU_INTERRUPTS;
fd = _open_pmu(type, engines->num_counters, &engines->irq,
engines->fd);
--
2.39.2
