On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 11:28:39AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> 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?
Depends. Do we qualify throttling as a failure?
If yes, we'll keep hitting this every now and then.
If no, then just dropping this condition might be enough.
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
> > > >
