On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 16:15:02 +0100 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:59:08PM +0000, Jesse Barnes wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 12:18:55 +0000 > > Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > We get a large number of bugs which have a, "hey I have that too" > > > because they see a GPU hang in dmesg. While two machines of the same > > > model having a GPU hang is indeed a coincidence, it is far from enough > > > evidence to suggest they are the same. > > > > > > In order to reduce this effect, and hopefully get people to file new bug > > > reports, clearly the error message itself has been insufficient (see ref > > > at the bottom for a new bug report with this characteristic). > > > > > > The algorithm is purposely pretty naive. I don't think we need much in > > > order to avoid the problem I am trying to solve, and keeping it naive > > > gives us some ability to make a decent test case. > > > > I like the direction of this. If we can get some basic info into the > > dmesg part of things (the only part regular users will actually look > > at) we can probably avoid some of the "me too" action we see on general > > GPU hangs. Having PID, comm, and some sort of hang signature are all > > good steps in that direction imo. > > tbh I don't see much value in regular users trying to triage gpu hang. If > they're not damn sure that they have a dupe (which means same platform, > versions of the software stack and crashing games) I much prefer if they > just send in a duplicate bug for us to triage. > > With the mis-design of bugzilla it's much harder to untangle a wrong > me-too than mark something as duplicate. And especially long-running bugs > are a royal pain if there's too much wrong me-too noise in there. > > Not a comment on the patch itself, just a general comment wrt avoiding > me-too gpu hang reports. So you're saying the GPU error decode tool should create a bug template for people so we don't get the "me too" reports? What I see above is that it's really important to avoid the "me too" stuff, and to do it in such a way that false positives are minimized (e.g. the IPEHR bit Ubuntu used to use). So I guess I don't see what's unconvincing here. Today we have no way of differentiating w/o digging in to the error record, which users definitely won't do, and this patch seems like it could only help with that... so count me confused. Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
