Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Don't taint when using fault injection
Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-07-06 15:10:02)
> Quoting Michał Winiarski (2020-07-06 15:01:25)
> > From: Michał Winiarski
> >
> > It is not really unexpected to hit wedge on init this way.
> > We're already downgrading error printk when running with fault injection,
> > let's use the same approach for CI tainting.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski
> > Cc: Chris Wilson
> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko
> > Cc: Petri Latvala
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> > index 82fada1e7552..d84c23592942 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> > @@ -438,7 +438,9 @@ static inline const char *enableddisabled(bool v)
> >
> > static inline void __add_taint_for_CI(unsigned int taint)
> > {
> > - add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> > + /* Failures that occur during fault injection testing are expected
> > */
> > + if (!i915_error_injected())
> > + add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> > }
>
> And I think this is better in add_taint_for_CI(). If we hit the
> GEM_BUG_ON() we should always add the taint, as that trace dump is a
> one-shot affair.
So if you agree, make add_taint_for_CI out-of-line and it there, and you
can have a
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson
straight away :)
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Don't taint when using fault injection
Quoting Michał Winiarski (2020-07-06 15:01:25)
> From: Michał Winiarski
>
> It is not really unexpected to hit wedge on init this way.
> We're already downgrading error printk when running with fault injection,
> let's use the same approach for CI tainting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski
> Cc: Chris Wilson
> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko
> Cc: Petri Latvala
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> index 82fada1e7552..d84c23592942 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
> @@ -438,7 +438,9 @@ static inline const char *enableddisabled(bool v)
>
> static inline void __add_taint_for_CI(unsigned int taint)
> {
> - add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> + /* Failures that occur during fault injection testing are expected */
> + if (!i915_error_injected())
> + add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> }
And I think this is better in add_taint_for_CI(). If we hit the
GEM_BUG_ON() we should always add the taint, as that trace dump is a
one-shot affair.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/3] drm/i915: Don't taint when using fault injection
From: Michał Winiarski
It is not really unexpected to hit wedge on init this way.
We're already downgrading error printk when running with fault injection,
let's use the same approach for CI tainting.
Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski
Cc: Chris Wilson
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko
Cc: Petri Latvala
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
index 82fada1e7552..d84c23592942 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_utils.h
@@ -438,7 +438,9 @@ static inline const char *enableddisabled(bool v)
static inline void __add_taint_for_CI(unsigned int taint)
{
- add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
+ /* Failures that occur during fault injection testing are expected */
+ if (!i915_error_injected())
+ add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
}
static inline void
--
2.27.0
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
