On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 08:14:42AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> Cc: Chris
>
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:45:18AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:44:13PM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > Log throttle reasons on selftest failure which will be useful for
> > > debugging.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c | 7 +++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c
> > > index dcef8d498919..1e0e59bc69b6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c
> > > @@ -478,8 +478,11 @@ int live_rps_control(void *arg)
> > > min, max, ktime_to_ns(min_dt), ktime_to_ns(max_dt));
> > >
> > > if (limit == rps->min_freq) {
> >
> > I was going to merge this, but then I noticed that this prints only
> > when the throttle moves that to our min_freq... When PCODE throttle
> > the freq, the guaranteed freq can be at any point, not necessarily
> > to the minimal, so this print is not very effective in the end of the day
>
> Makes me wonder why such a criteria at all?
very good question...
Perhaps we need to revamp entirely this selftest or kill it?
>
> Raag
>
> > > - pr_err("%s: GPU throttled to minimum!\n",
> > > - engine->name);
> > > + u32 throttle = intel_uncore_read(gt->uncore,
> > > + intel_gt_perf_limit_reasons_reg(gt));
> > > +
> > > + pr_err("%s: GPU throttled to minimum frequency with reasons 0x%08x\n",
> > > + engine->name, throttle & GT0_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS_MASK);
> > > show_pstate_limits(rps);
> > > err = -ENODEV;
> > > break;
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
