Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 10/11/2022 10:35, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
On 10.11.2022 10:55, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 09/11/2022 19:57, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
[snip]
Is it really a problem to merge this patch now to get the process
started? And other sub-components get updated as and when people get the
time to do them? You could maybe even help rather than posting
completely conflicting patch sets that basically duplicate all the
effort for no actual benefit.
Instead of merging this patch now, oriented on GT only, I would rather
wait until we discuss and plan solution for the all sub-components.
Yes, agreed.
Once that's done (with agreement on naming and output) we can start
converting exiting messages.
My proposal would be:
- use wrappers per component
This is passable to me but Jani has raised a concern on IRC that it
leads to a lot of macro duplication. Which is I think a valid point, but
which does not have a completely nice solution. Best I heard so far was
a suggestion from Joonas to add just a single component formatter macro
and use the existing drm_xxx helpers.
- use lower case names
I prefer this as well. Even though usual argument is for macros to be
upper case, I find the improved readability of lower case trumps that.
- don't add colon
Not sure, when I look at it below it looks a bit not structured enough
without the colon, but maybe it is just me.
#define i915_xxx(_i915, _fmt, ...) \
drm_xxx(&(_i915)->drm, _fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define gt_xxx(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
i915_xxx((_gt)->i915, "GT%u " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ..
#define guc_xxx(_guc, _fmt, ...) \
gt_xxx(guc_to_gt(_guc), "GuC " _fmt, ..
#define ct_xxx(_ct, _fmt, ...) \
guc_xxx(ct_to_guc(_ct), "CTB " _fmt, ..
where
xxx = { err, warn, notice, info, dbg }
and then for calls like:
i915_err(i915, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
gt_err(gt, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
guc_err(guc, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
ct_err(ct, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
Okay lets go with this then since we have allowed some time for comments
and no strict objections have been raised. Probably limit to to
GT/GuC/CT space for not, ie. not adding i915_ loggers.
My preference is just to have a colon in the GT identifier, lowercase or
uppercase I don't mind.
Regards,
Tvrtko
So the macro idea would be like this:
drm_err(I915_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", i915), ERR_PTR(err));
drm_err(GT_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", gt), ERR_PTR(err));
drm_err(GUC_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", guc), ERR_PTR(err));
drm_err(CT_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", ct), ERR_PTR(err));
Each component would just need to define a single macro and not have to
duplicate all the err, info, warn, notice, ratelimited, once, whatever
versions. Which is a benefit but it's a quite a bit uglier to read in
the code.
If there is a choice between having ugly code all over the place and few
more lines with helpers then without any doubts I would pick the latter.
And this seems to be option already used elsewhere, see:
#define dev_err(dev, fmt, ...) \
dev_printk_index_wrap ...
#define pci_err(pdev, fmt, arg...) \
dev_err(&(pdev)->dev, fmt, ##arg)
#define drm_err(drm, fmt, ...) \
__drm_printk((drm), err,, "*ERROR* " fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define drbd_err(obj, fmt, args...) \
drbd_printk(KERN_ERR, obj, fmt, ## args)
#define ch7006_err(client, format, ...) \
dev_err(>dev, format, __VA_ARGS__)
#define mthca_err(mdev, format, arg...) \
dev_err(>pdev->dev, format, ## arg)
#define ctx_err(ctx, fmt, arg...) \
cal_err((ctx)->cal, "ctx%u: " fmt, (ctx)->dma_ctx, ##arg)
#define mlx4_err(mdev, format, ...) \
dev_err(&(mdev)->persist->pdev->dev, format, ##__VA_ARGS__)
...
Michal
[1]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/include/linux/dev_printk.h#L143
[2]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/include/linux/pci.h#L2485
[3]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/include/drm/drm_print.h#L468
[4]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_int.h#L113
[5]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/ch7006_priv.h#L139
[6]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/infiniband/hw/mthca/mthca_dev.h#L377
[7]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/media/platform/ti/cal/cal.h#L279
[8]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/mlx4.h#L225
Perhaps macro could be called something other than XX_LOG to make it
more readable, don't know.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 11/10/2022 01:43, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 09/11/2022 17:46, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/9/2022 03:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 08/11/2022 20:15, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/8/2022 01:01, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 19:14, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc.
it can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message
wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output
but with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and
print that, so we could have it different per-platform, but
IMO it's not worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the
maintainers to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to
these new logging macro for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest
standardising to lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d",
gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize
gt%d sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6 sysfs
files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6p sysfs
files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RPS sysfs
files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u throttle
sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add gt%u rps defaults
(%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d:
intel_pcode_init failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name,
sizeof(ddat_gt->name), "i915_gt%u", i);
Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't
mean that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted
should be done incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be
capitalised.
Okay just make it consistent then.
Besides:
grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_err(>drm, "timeout disabling GT
waking\n");
i915/vlv_suspend.c: "timeout waiting for GT
wells to go %s\n",
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_dbg(>drm, "GT register access
while GT waking disabled\n");
i915/i915_gpu_error.c: err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n",
str_yes_no(gt->awake));
i915/i915_debugfs.c: seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on
%s)", engine->name);
i915/intel_uncore.c: "GT thread status wait
timed out\n");
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT
failed to idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as
"multicast" or "replicated" registers:
i915/gt/selftest_rps.c: pr_info("%s: rps counted
%d C0 cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock
frequency of %uKHz\n",
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("[%s] GT is wedged!\n",
engine->name);
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c: "GT clock
frequency changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n",
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("Unable to flush
GT pm before test\n");
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT failed to idle\n");
i915/i915_sysfs.c: "failed to register GT
sysfs directory\n");
i915/intel_uncore.h: * of the basic non-engine GT registers
(referred to as "GSI" on
i915/intel_uncore.h: * newer platforms, or "GT block" on
older platforms)? If so, we'll
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or,
do we want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I
don't have a strong opinion at the moment so I'll add some more
folks to Cc.
You mean GT_ERR("msg") vs intel_gt_err("msg")? Personally, I
would prefer just gt_err("msg") to keep it as close to the
official drm_* versions as possible. Print lines tend to be
excessively long already. Taking a 'gt' parameter instead of a
'>i915->drm' parameter does help with that but it seems like
calling the wrapper intel_gt_* is shooting ourselves in the foot
on that one. And GT_ERR vs gt_err just comes down to the fact
that it is a macro wrapper and therefore is required to
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 11/10/2022 02:33, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2022, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
Instead of merging this patch now, oriented on GT only, I would rather
wait until we discuss and plan solution for the all sub-components.
Once that's done (with agreement on naming and output) we can start
converting exiting messages.
My proposal would be:
- use wrappers per component
- use lower case names
- don't add colon
#define i915_xxx(_i915, _fmt, ...) \
drm_xxx(&(_i915)->drm, _fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define gt_xxx(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
i915_xxx((_gt)->i915, "GT%u " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ..
#define guc_xxx(_guc, _fmt, ...) \
gt_xxx(guc_to_gt(_guc), "GuC " _fmt, ..
#define ct_xxx(_ct, _fmt, ...) \
guc_xxx(ct_to_guc(_ct), "CTB " _fmt, ..
where
xxx = { err, warn, notice, info, dbg }
and then for calls like:
i915_err(i915, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
gt_err(gt, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
guc_err(guc, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
ct_err(ct, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
the output would look like:
[ ] i915 :00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* Foo failed (-EIO)
[ ] i915 :00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* GT0 Foo failed (-EIO)
[ ] i915 :00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* GT0 GuC Foo failed (-EIO)
[ ] i915 :00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* GT0 GuC CTB Foo failed (-EIO)
Would that work for all of you?
I think we borderline have too many wrappers already. I've basically
blocked the i915_* variants early on in favour of just using the drm_*
calls directly - which, themselves, are also wrappers on dev_*.
In general, there's aversion in the kernel to adding wrappers that hide
what's actually going on. WYSIWYG.
That is blatantly not the case. There is a very strong push in kernel
code reviews to abstract common code into helper functions. How is this
any different? If you removed all helper functions with the desire to
have truly WYSIWYG code then each line of code would be a paragraph long.
So I wasn't thrilled to see the GT_* wrappers either.
And indeed part of it is that anything you do sets an example for the
next developer coming along. You add wrappers for this, and sure enough
someone's going to cargo cult and add wrappers for some other
component. We didn't even have to merge this to see that idea pop up.
The thing with logging is that it's not just one wrapper. It's info,
notice, warn, err, multiplied by the "once" variants, with some
duplicated by the "ratelimited" variants. (And yeah, C sucks at this.)
Arguably the display code could use logging wrappers for connectors,
encoders and crtcs, too. Not just i915, but across drm. See:
git grep "\[\(CONNECTOR\|ENCODER\|CRTC\)"
But we've opted not to.
This is just my educated guess, but what I think is more likely to
happen is adding a "debug name" member to the relevant structs that you
could use like:
drm_dbg_kms(connector->dev, "%s foo\n", connector->dbg_id);
Huh? You want the wrapper to be called drm_dbg_gt instead of gt_dbg but
otherwise it is identical to what is currently in the patch? Other than
being a longer name, how is that any different? It is still very much a
wrapper of exactly the type that you don't seem to like? And as noted
already, in that case shouldn't we be pushing a patch to rename drm_dbg
to dev_dbg_drm first? In which case the above should be dev_dbg_drm_kms?
---
I'm not going to block this patchset, but I also really *really* don't
want to see a cargo culted copy of this for other components. Which kind
of makes me anxious.
I really don't understand the problem with adding such wrappers. Sure,
there are a bunch of varients - dbg, err, warn, etc. But the variant
list is contained and unlikely to grow at any point. It is trivially
easy to look up gt_dbg to find out what it is doing. It makes the code
much easier to read. I mean, who cares that gt_dbg is implemented via
drm_dbg which is implemented via dev_dbg? Only someone that is actively
wanting to further change the implementation. Anyone who is using it
just wants to know that they are calling the correct debug printer for
their module and are giving it the correct parameters. Having a nice
simple name makes that totally clear.
So what if you looked again what you could do to make using the drm_*
logging variants easier?
Not a lot. All other proposals so far have been adding complicated and
unwieldy constructs to every single print.
Fundamentally, the drm_dbg wrappers as they stand do not allow for
further customisation. So your choice is to replace, rewrite or wrap.
Replacing it with an entirely parallel implementation is fundamentally
the wrong direction. Re-writing the DRM layer to take a pointer to a
custom printer object instead of a 'struct drm_device' (where each
sub-module defines it's own private printer that adds it's preferred
string and chains on to the next printer) seems like a huge change to
the entire DRM code base for
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 10.11.2022 10:55, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 09/11/2022 19:57, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> Is it really a problem to merge this patch now to get the process
>>> started? And other sub-components get updated as and when people get the
>>> time to do them? You could maybe even help rather than posting
>>> completely conflicting patch sets that basically duplicate all the
>>> effort for no actual benefit.
>>
>> Instead of merging this patch now, oriented on GT only, I would rather
>> wait until we discuss and plan solution for the all sub-components.
>
> Yes, agreed.
>
>> Once that's done (with agreement on naming and output) we can start
>> converting exiting messages.
>>
>> My proposal would be:
>> - use wrappers per component
>
> This is passable to me but Jani has raised a concern on IRC that it
> leads to a lot of macro duplication. Which is I think a valid point, but
> which does not have a completely nice solution. Best I heard so far was
> a suggestion from Joonas to add just a single component formatter macro
> and use the existing drm_xxx helpers.
>
>> - use lower case names
>
> I prefer this as well. Even though usual argument is for macros to be
> upper case, I find the improved readability of lower case trumps that.
>
>> - don't add colon
>
> Not sure, when I look at it below it looks a bit not structured enough
> without the colon, but maybe it is just me.
>
>> #define i915_xxx(_i915, _fmt, ...) \
>> drm_xxx(&(_i915)->drm, _fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>>
>> #define gt_xxx(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
>> i915_xxx((_gt)->i915, "GT%u " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ..
>>
>> #define guc_xxx(_guc, _fmt, ...) \
>> gt_xxx(guc_to_gt(_guc), "GuC " _fmt, ..
>>
>> #define ct_xxx(_ct, _fmt, ...) \
>> guc_xxx(ct_to_guc(_ct), "CTB " _fmt, ..
>>
>> where
>> xxx = { err, warn, notice, info, dbg }
>>
>> and then for calls like:
>>
>> i915_err(i915, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>> gt_err(gt, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>> guc_err(guc, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>> ct_err(ct, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>
> So the macro idea would be like this:
>
> drm_err(I915_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", i915), ERR_PTR(err));
> drm_err(GT_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", gt), ERR_PTR(err));
> drm_err(GUC_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", guc), ERR_PTR(err));
> drm_err(CT_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", ct), ERR_PTR(err));
>
> Each component would just need to define a single macro and not have to
> duplicate all the err, info, warn, notice, ratelimited, once, whatever
> versions. Which is a benefit but it's a quite a bit uglier to read in
> the code.
If there is a choice between having ugly code all over the place and few
more lines with helpers then without any doubts I would pick the latter.
And this seems to be option already used elsewhere, see:
#define dev_err(dev, fmt, ...) \
dev_printk_index_wrap ...
#define pci_err(pdev, fmt, arg...) \
dev_err(&(pdev)->dev, fmt, ##arg)
#define drm_err(drm, fmt, ...) \
__drm_printk((drm), err,, "*ERROR* " fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define drbd_err(obj, fmt, args...) \
drbd_printk(KERN_ERR, obj, fmt, ## args)
#define ch7006_err(client, format, ...) \
dev_err(>dev, format, __VA_ARGS__)
#define mthca_err(mdev, format, arg...) \
dev_err(>pdev->dev, format, ## arg)
#define ctx_err(ctx, fmt, arg...) \
cal_err((ctx)->cal, "ctx%u: " fmt, (ctx)->dma_ctx, ##arg)
#define mlx4_err(mdev, format, ...) \
dev_err(&(mdev)->persist->pdev->dev, format, ##__VA_ARGS__)
...
Michal
[1]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/include/linux/dev_printk.h#L143
[2]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/include/linux/pci.h#L2485
[3]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/include/drm/drm_print.h#L468
[4]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_int.h#L113
[5]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/ch7006_priv.h#L139
[6]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/infiniband/hw/mthca/mthca_dev.h#L377
[7]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/media/platform/ti/cal/cal.h#L279
[8]
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.1-rc4/source/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/mlx4.h#L225
>
> Perhaps macro could be called something other than XX_LOG to make it
> more readable, don't know.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On Wed, 09 Nov 2022, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> Instead of merging this patch now, oriented on GT only, I would rather
> wait until we discuss and plan solution for the all sub-components.
>
> Once that's done (with agreement on naming and output) we can start
> converting exiting messages.
>
> My proposal would be:
> - use wrappers per component
> - use lower case names
> - don't add colon
>
> #define i915_xxx(_i915, _fmt, ...) \
> drm_xxx(&(_i915)->drm, _fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
> #define gt_xxx(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
> i915_xxx((_gt)->i915, "GT%u " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ..
>
> #define guc_xxx(_guc, _fmt, ...) \
> gt_xxx(guc_to_gt(_guc), "GuC " _fmt, ..
>
> #define ct_xxx(_ct, _fmt, ...) \
> guc_xxx(ct_to_guc(_ct), "CTB " _fmt, ..
>
> where
> xxx = { err, warn, notice, info, dbg }
>
> and then for calls like:
>
> i915_err(i915, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
> gt_err(gt, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>guc_err(guc, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
> ct_err(ct, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
>
> the output would look like:
>
> [ ] i915 :00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* Foo failed (-EIO)
> [ ] i915 :00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* GT0 Foo failed (-EIO)
> [ ] i915 :00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* GT0 GuC Foo failed (-EIO)
> [ ] i915 :00:02.0: [drm] *ERROR* GT0 GuC CTB Foo failed (-EIO)
>
> Would that work for all of you?
I think we borderline have too many wrappers already. I've basically
blocked the i915_* variants early on in favour of just using the drm_*
calls directly - which, themselves, are also wrappers on dev_*.
In general, there's aversion in the kernel to adding wrappers that hide
what's actually going on. WYSIWYG.
So I wasn't thrilled to see the GT_* wrappers either.
And indeed part of it is that anything you do sets an example for the
next developer coming along. You add wrappers for this, and sure enough
someone's going to cargo cult and add wrappers for some other
component. We didn't even have to merge this to see that idea pop up.
The thing with logging is that it's not just one wrapper. It's info,
notice, warn, err, multiplied by the "once" variants, with some
duplicated by the "ratelimited" variants. (And yeah, C sucks at this.)
Arguably the display code could use logging wrappers for connectors,
encoders and crtcs, too. Not just i915, but across drm. See:
git grep "\[\(CONNECTOR\|ENCODER\|CRTC\)"
But we've opted not to.
This is just my educated guess, but what I think is more likely to
happen is adding a "debug name" member to the relevant structs that you
could use like:
drm_dbg_kms(connector->dev, "%s foo\n", connector->dbg_id);
---
I'm not going to block this patchset, but I also really *really* don't
want to see a cargo culted copy of this for other components. Which kind
of makes me anxious.
So what if you looked again what you could do to make using the drm_*
logging variants easier?
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 09/11/2022 19:57, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
[snip]
Is it really a problem to merge this patch now to get the process
started? And other sub-components get updated as and when people get the
time to do them? You could maybe even help rather than posting
completely conflicting patch sets that basically duplicate all the
effort for no actual benefit.
Instead of merging this patch now, oriented on GT only, I would rather
wait until we discuss and plan solution for the all sub-components.
Yes, agreed.
Once that's done (with agreement on naming and output) we can start
converting exiting messages.
My proposal would be:
- use wrappers per component
This is passable to me but Jani has raised a concern on IRC that it
leads to a lot of macro duplication. Which is I think a valid point, but
which does not have a completely nice solution. Best I heard so far was
a suggestion from Joonas to add just a single component formatter macro
and use the existing drm_xxx helpers.
- use lower case names
I prefer this as well. Even though usual argument is for macros to be
upper case, I find the improved readability of lower case trumps that.
- don't add colon
Not sure, when I look at it below it looks a bit not structured enough
without the colon, but maybe it is just me.
#define i915_xxx(_i915, _fmt, ...) \
drm_xxx(&(_i915)->drm, _fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
#define gt_xxx(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
i915_xxx((_gt)->i915, "GT%u " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ..
#define guc_xxx(_guc, _fmt, ...) \
gt_xxx(guc_to_gt(_guc), "GuC " _fmt, ..
#define ct_xxx(_ct, _fmt, ...) \
guc_xxx(ct_to_guc(_ct), "CTB " _fmt, ..
where
xxx = { err, warn, notice, info, dbg }
and then for calls like:
i915_err(i915, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
gt_err(gt, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
guc_err(guc, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
ct_err(ct, "Foo failed (%pe)\n", ERR_PTR(err));
So the macro idea would be like this:
drm_err(I915_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", i915), ERR_PTR(err));
drm_err(GT_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", gt), ERR_PTR(err));
drm_err(GUC_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", guc), ERR_PTR(err));
drm_err(CT_LOG("Foo failed (%pe)\n", ct), ERR_PTR(err));
Each component would just need to define a single macro and not have to
duplicate all the err, info, warn, notice, ratelimited, once, whatever
versions. Which is a benefit but it's a quite a bit uglier to read in
the code.
Perhaps macro could be called something other than XX_LOG to make it
more readable, don't know.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 09/11/2022 17:46, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/9/2022 03:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 08/11/2022 20:15, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/8/2022 01:01, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 19:14, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it
can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message
wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output
but with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print
that, so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's
not worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the
maintainers to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to
these new logging macro for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest
standardising to lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize
gt%d sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6p sysfs
files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u RPS sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u throttle
sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add
gt%u rps defaults (%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d:
intel_pcode_init failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name, sizeof(ddat_gt->name),
"i915_gt%u", i);
Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't
mean that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted should
be done incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be capitalised.
Okay just make it consistent then.
Besides:
grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_err(>drm, "timeout
disabling GT waking\n");
i915/vlv_suspend.c: "timeout waiting for GT
wells to go %s\n",
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_dbg(>drm, "GT register access
while GT waking disabled\n");
i915/i915_gpu_error.c: err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n",
str_yes_no(gt->awake));
i915/i915_debugfs.c: seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on
%s)", engine->name);
i915/intel_uncore.c: "GT thread status wait timed
out\n");
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT
failed to idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as
"multicast" or "replicated" registers:
i915/gt/selftest_rps.c: pr_info("%s: rps counted %d
C0 cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock frequency
of %uKHz\n",
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("[%s] GT is
wedged!\n", engine->name);
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c: "GT clock frequency
changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n",
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("Unable to flush GT
pm before test\n");
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT failed to idle\n");
i915/i915_sysfs.c: "failed to register GT
sysfs directory\n");
i915/intel_uncore.h: * of the basic non-engine GT registers
(referred to as "GSI" on
i915/intel_uncore.h: * newer platforms, or "GT block" on older
platforms)? If so, we'll
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or,
do we want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't
have a strong opinion at the moment so I'll add some more folks
to Cc.
You mean GT_ERR("msg") vs intel_gt_err("msg")? Personally, I would
prefer just gt_err("msg") to keep it as close to the official drm_*
versions as possible. Print lines tend to be excessively long
already. Taking a 'gt' parameter instead of a '>i915->drm'
parameter does help with that but it seems like calling the wrapper
intel_gt_* is shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. And
GT_ERR vs gt_err just comes down to
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 09.11.2022 18:46, John Harrison wrote:
> On 11/9/2022 03:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> On 08/11/2022 20:15, John Harrison wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2022 01:01, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 19:14, John Harrison wrote:
> On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison
>
> When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it
> can be
> difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
> multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message
> wrappers. If
> used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output
> but with
> a GT# prefix on it.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print
that, so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's
not worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the
maintainers to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to
these new logging macro for gt code.
>>>
>>> Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest
>>> standardising to lowercase GT in logs because:
>>>
>>> $ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
>>> $ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize
>>> gt%d sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
>>> create gt%u RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n",
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6p sysfs
>>> files (%pe)\n",
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
>>> create gt%u RPS sysfs files (%pe)",
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
>>> create gt%u punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u throttle
>>> sysfs files (%pe)",
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
>>> media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
>>> i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add
>>> gt%u rps defaults (%pe)\n",
>>> i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d:
>>> intel_pcode_init failed %d\n", id, ret);
>>> i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name, sizeof(ddat_gt->name),
>>> "i915_gt%u", i);
>>>
>
> Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't
> mean that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted should
> be done incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be capitalised.
Okay just make it consistent then.
> Besides:
> grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
> i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_err(>drm, "timeout
> disabling GT waking\n");
> i915/vlv_suspend.c: "timeout waiting for GT
> wells to go %s\n",
> i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_dbg(>drm, "GT register access
> while GT waking disabled\n");
> i915/i915_gpu_error.c: err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n",
> str_yes_no(gt->awake));
> i915/i915_debugfs.c: seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
> i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on
> %s)", engine->name);
> i915/intel_uncore.c: "GT thread status wait timed
> out\n");
> i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT
> failed to idle: %d\n", ret);
> i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
> idle: %d\n", ret);
> i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
> idle: %d\n", ret);
> i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as
> "multicast" or "replicated" registers:
> i915/gt/selftest_rps.c: pr_info("%s: rps counted %d
> C0 cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock frequency
> of %uKHz\n",
> i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("[%s] GT is
> wedged!\n", engine->name);
> i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
> i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c: "GT clock frequency
> changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n",
> i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("Unable to flush GT
> pm before test\n");
> i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT failed to idle\n");
> i915/i915_sysfs.c: "failed to register GT
> sysfs directory\n");
> i915/intel_uncore.h: * of the basic non-engine GT registers
> (referred to as "GSI" on
> i915/intel_uncore.h: * newer
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 11/9/2022 03:05, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 08/11/2022 20:15, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/8/2022 01:01, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 19:14, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it
can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message
wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output
but with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print
that, so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's
not worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the
maintainers to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to
these new logging macro for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest
standardising to lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize
gt%d sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6p sysfs
files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u RPS sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u throttle
sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add
gt%u rps defaults (%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d:
intel_pcode_init failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name, sizeof(ddat_gt->name),
"i915_gt%u", i);
Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't
mean that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted should
be done incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be capitalised.
Okay just make it consistent then.
Besides:
grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_err(>drm, "timeout
disabling GT waking\n");
i915/vlv_suspend.c: "timeout waiting for GT
wells to go %s\n",
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_dbg(>drm, "GT register access
while GT waking disabled\n");
i915/i915_gpu_error.c: err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n",
str_yes_no(gt->awake));
i915/i915_debugfs.c: seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on
%s)", engine->name);
i915/intel_uncore.c: "GT thread status wait timed
out\n");
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT
failed to idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as
"multicast" or "replicated" registers:
i915/gt/selftest_rps.c: pr_info("%s: rps counted %d
C0 cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock frequency
of %uKHz\n",
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("[%s] GT is
wedged!\n", engine->name);
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c: "GT clock frequency
changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n",
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("Unable to flush GT
pm before test\n");
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT failed to idle\n");
i915/i915_sysfs.c: "failed to register GT
sysfs directory\n");
i915/intel_uncore.h: * of the basic non-engine GT registers
(referred to as "GSI" on
i915/intel_uncore.h: * newer platforms, or "GT block" on older
platforms)? If so, we'll
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or,
do we want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't
have a strong opinion at the moment so I'll add some more folks
to Cc.
You mean GT_ERR("msg") vs intel_gt_err("msg")? Personally, I would
prefer just gt_err("msg") to keep it as close to the official drm_*
versions as possible. Print lines tend to be excessively long
already. Taking a 'gt' parameter instead of a '>i915->drm'
parameter does help with that but it seems like calling the wrapper
intel_gt_* is shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. And
GT_ERR vs gt_err just comes down to the fact that it is a macro
wrapper and
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 08/11/2022 20:15, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/8/2022 01:01, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 19:14, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it
can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output but
with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print
that, so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's not
worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the
maintainers to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to
these new logging macro for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest
standardising to lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize gt%d
sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6p sysfs
files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u RPS sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u throttle sysfs
files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add
gt%u rps defaults (%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d: intel_pcode_init
failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name,
sizeof(ddat_gt->name), "i915_gt%u", i);
Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't mean
that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted should be
done incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be capitalised.
Okay just make it consistent then.
Besides:
grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_err(>drm, "timeout
disabling GT waking\n");
i915/vlv_suspend.c: "timeout waiting for GT wells
to go %s\n",
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_dbg(>drm, "GT register access while
GT waking disabled\n");
i915/i915_gpu_error.c: err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n",
str_yes_no(gt->awake));
i915/i915_debugfs.c: seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on %s)",
engine->name);
i915/intel_uncore.c: "GT thread status wait timed
out\n");
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT
failed to idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as
"multicast" or "replicated" registers:
i915/gt/selftest_rps.c: pr_info("%s: rps counted %d
C0 cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock frequency of
%uKHz\n",
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("[%s] GT is
wedged!\n", engine->name);
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c: "GT clock frequency
changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n",
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("Unable to flush GT pm
before test\n");
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT failed to idle\n");
i915/i915_sysfs.c: "failed to register GT sysfs
directory\n");
i915/intel_uncore.h: * of the basic non-engine GT registers
(referred to as "GSI" on
i915/intel_uncore.h: * newer platforms, or "GT block" on older
platforms)? If so, we'll
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or, do
we want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't have
a strong opinion at the moment so I'll add some more folks to Cc.
You mean GT_ERR("msg") vs intel_gt_err("msg")? Personally, I would
prefer just gt_err("msg") to keep it as close to the official drm_*
versions as possible. Print lines tend to be excessively long
already. Taking a 'gt' parameter instead of a '>i915->drm'
parameter does help with that but it seems like calling the wrapper
intel_gt_* is shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. And GT_ERR
vs gt_err just comes down to the fact that it is a macro wrapper and
therefore is required to be in upper
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 11/8/2022 01:01, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 19:14, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it
can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output but
with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print
that, so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's not
worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the
maintainers to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to
these new logging macro for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest
standardising to lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize gt%d
sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6p sysfs
files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u RPS sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u throttle sysfs
files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add
gt%u rps defaults (%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d: intel_pcode_init
failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name,
sizeof(ddat_gt->name), "i915_gt%u", i);
Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't mean
that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted should be
done incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be capitalised.
Okay just make it consistent then.
Besides:
grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_err(>drm, "timeout
disabling GT waking\n");
i915/vlv_suspend.c: "timeout waiting for GT wells
to go %s\n",
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_dbg(>drm, "GT register access while
GT waking disabled\n");
i915/i915_gpu_error.c: err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n",
str_yes_no(gt->awake));
i915/i915_debugfs.c: seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on %s)",
engine->name);
i915/intel_uncore.c: "GT thread status wait timed
out\n");
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT
failed to idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to
idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as
"multicast" or "replicated" registers:
i915/gt/selftest_rps.c: pr_info("%s: rps counted %d
C0 cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock frequency of
%uKHz\n",
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("[%s] GT is
wedged!\n", engine->name);
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c: "GT clock frequency
changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n",
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("Unable to flush GT pm
before test\n");
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT failed to idle\n");
i915/i915_sysfs.c: "failed to register GT sysfs
directory\n");
i915/intel_uncore.h: * of the basic non-engine GT registers
(referred to as "GSI" on
i915/intel_uncore.h: * newer platforms, or "GT block" on older
platforms)? If so, we'll
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or, do
we want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't have
a strong opinion at the moment so I'll add some more folks to Cc.
You mean GT_ERR("msg") vs intel_gt_err("msg")? Personally, I would
prefer just gt_err("msg") to keep it as close to the official drm_*
versions as possible. Print lines tend to be excessively long
already. Taking a 'gt' parameter instead of a '>i915->drm'
parameter does help with that but it seems like calling the wrapper
intel_gt_* is shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. And GT_ERR
vs gt_err just comes down to the fact that it is a macro wrapper and
therefore is required to be in upper case.
There was a maintainer level
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 07/11/2022 19:14, John Harrison wrote:
On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output but with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print
that, so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's not
worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the maintainers
to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to these new logging
macro for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest standardising
to lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize gt%d
sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u RC6p sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u RPS sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u throttle sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add gt%u
rps defaults (%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d: intel_pcode_init
failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name,
sizeof(ddat_gt->name), "i915_gt%u", i);
Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't mean
that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted should be done
incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be capitalised.
Okay just make it consistent then.
Besides:
grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_err(>drm, "timeout disabling
GT waking\n");
i915/vlv_suspend.c: "timeout waiting for GT wells to
go %s\n",
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_dbg(>drm, "GT register access while GT
waking disabled\n");
i915/i915_gpu_error.c: err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n",
str_yes_no(gt->awake));
i915/i915_debugfs.c: seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on %s)",
engine->name);
i915/intel_uncore.c: "GT thread status wait timed out\n");
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed
to idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to idle:
%d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to idle:
%d\n", ret);
i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as "multicast"
or "replicated" registers:
i915/gt/selftest_rps.c: pr_info("%s: rps counted %d C0
cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock frequency of
%uKHz\n",
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("[%s] GT is
wedged!\n", engine->name);
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c: "GT clock frequency
changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n",
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("Unable to flush GT pm
before test\n");
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT
failed to idle\n");
i915/i915_sysfs.c: "failed to register GT sysfs
directory\n");
i915/intel_uncore.h: * of the basic non-engine GT registers
(referred to as "GSI" on
i915/intel_uncore.h: * newer platforms, or "GT block" on older
platforms)? If so, we'll
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or, do we
want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't have a
strong opinion at the moment so I'll add some more folks to Cc.
You mean GT_ERR("msg") vs intel_gt_err("msg")? Personally, I would
prefer just gt_err("msg") to keep it as close to the official drm_*
versions as possible. Print lines tend to be excessively long already.
Taking a 'gt' parameter instead of a '>i915->drm' parameter does
help with that but it seems like calling the wrapper intel_gt_* is
shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. And GT_ERR vs gt_err just
comes down to the fact that it is a macro wrapper and therefore is
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 11/7/2022 08:17, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output but with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print
that, so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's not
worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the maintainers
to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to these new logging
macro for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest standardising
to lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize gt%d
sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u RC6p sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u RPS sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create
gt%u punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u throttle sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add gt%u
rps defaults (%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d: intel_pcode_init
failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name,
sizeof(ddat_gt->name), "i915_gt%u", i);
Just because there are 11 existing instances of one form doesn't mean
that the 275 instances that are waiting to be converted should be done
incorrectly. GT is an acronym and should be capitalised.
Besides:
grep -r "GT " i915 | grep '"'
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_err(>drm, "timeout disabling
GT waking\n");
i915/vlv_suspend.c: "timeout waiting for GT wells to
go %s\n",
i915/vlv_suspend.c: drm_dbg(>drm, "GT register access while GT
waking disabled\n");
i915/i915_gpu_error.c: err_printf(m, "GT awake: %s\n",
str_yes_no(gt->awake));
i915/i915_debugfs.c: seq_printf(m, "GT awake? %s [%d], %llums\n",
i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c: pr_err("Failed to idle GT (on %s)",
engine->name);
i915/intel_uncore.c: "GT thread status wait timed out\n");
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc_multi_lrc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed
to idle: %d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to idle:
%d\n", ret);
i915/gt/uc/selftest_guc.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "GT failed to idle:
%d\n", ret);
i915/gt/intel_gt_mcr.c: * Some GT registers are designed as "multicast"
or "replicated" registers:
i915/gt/selftest_rps.c: pr_info("%s: rps counted %d C0
cycles [%lldns] in %lldns [%d cycles], using GT clock frequency of %uKHz\n",
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("[%s] GT is
wedged!\n", engine->name);
i915/gt/selftest_hangcheck.c: pr_err("GT is wedged!\n");
i915/gt/intel_gt_clock_utils.c: "GT clock frequency
changed, was %uHz, now %uHz!\n",
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("Unable to flush GT pm
before test\n");
i915/gt/selftest_engine_pm.c: pr_err("GT
failed to idle\n");
i915/i915_sysfs.c: "failed to register GT sysfs
directory\n");
i915/intel_uncore.h: * of the basic non-engine GT registers
(referred to as "GSI" on
i915/intel_uncore.h: * newer platforms, or "GT block" on older
platforms)? If so, we'll
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or, do we
want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't have a
strong opinion at the moment so I'll add some more folks to Cc.
You mean GT_ERR("msg") vs intel_gt_err("msg")? Personally, I would
prefer just gt_err("msg") to keep it as close to the official drm_*
versions as possible. Print lines tend to be excessively long already.
Taking a 'gt' parameter instead of a '>i915->drm' parameter does
help with that but it seems like calling the wrapper intel_gt_* is
shooting ourselves in the foot on that one. And GT_ERR vs gt_err just
comes down to the fact that it is a macro wrapper and therefore is
required to be in upper case.
There was a maintainer level mini-discussion on this
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 07/11/2022 09:33, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output but with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on
single-GT devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print that,
so we could have it different per-platform, but IMO it's not worth the
effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the maintainers
to make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to these new logging
macro for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest standardising to
lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c:
gt->i915->sysfs_gt, "gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c: "failed to initialize gt%d
sysfs root\n", gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
RC6 sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u RC6p sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
RPS sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u throttle sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to
create gt%u media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add gt%u rps
defaults (%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d:
intel_pcode_init failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name,
sizeof(ddat_gt->name), "i915_gt%u", i);
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or, do we
want intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't have a strong
opinion at the moment so I'll add some more folks to Cc.
There was a maintainer level mini-discussion on this topic which I will
try to summarise.
Main contention point was the maintenance cost and generally an
undesirable pattern of needing to add many subsystem/component/directory
specific macros. Which then typically need extra flavours and so on. But
over verbosity of the code is obviously also bad, so one compromise idea
was to add a macro which builds the GT string and use drm logging
helpers directly. This would be something like:
drm_err(GT_LOG("something went wrong ret=%d\n", gt), ret);
drm_info(GT_LOG(...same...));
Whether or not to put the gt as parameter to the helper macro or outside
wasn't really decided upon. Anyway the macro would be adding the magic
"gt%u: " prefix, drm device and all.
Also the name GT_LOG (or case) is just for illustration, that part
wasn't really discussed.
If agreeable this pattern could then be used to consolidate some other
macros that we have. Although apart from CT_DEBUG/ERROR I don't know if
we have any others.
I hope I have transferred the idea correctly. Please shout if I have not.
Regards,
Tvrtko
What I'd would like to see tried is to converting all of i915/gt within
one kernel release so we don't have a mish-mash of log formats.
Regards,
Tvrtko
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
index e0365d5562484..1e016fb0117a4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
@@ -13,6 +13,21 @@
struct drm_i915_private;
struct drm_printer;
+#define GT_ERR(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_err(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_WARN(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_warn(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_NOTICE(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_notice(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_INFO(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_info(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_DBG(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_dbg(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
#define GT_TRACE(gt, fmt, ...) do { \
const struct intel_gt *gt__ __maybe_unused = (gt); \
GEM_TRACE("%s " fmt, dev_name(gt__->i915->drm.dev), \
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 05/11/2022 01:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output but with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on single-GT
devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print that, so we could
have it different per-platform, but IMO it's not worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the maintainers to
make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to these new logging macro
for gt code.
Idea is I think a very good one. First I would suggest standardising to
lowercase GT in logs because:
$ grep "GT%" i915/ -r
$ grep "gt%" i915/ -r
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c:gt->i915->sysfs_gt,
"gt%d", gt->info.id))
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs.c:"failed to initialize gt%d sysfs root\n",
gt->info.id);
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6 sysfs
files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RC6p
sysfs files (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u RPS sysfs
files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
punit_req_freq_mhz sysfs (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
throttle sysfs files (%pe)",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to create gt%u
media_perf_power_attrs sysfs (%pe)\n",
i915/gt/intel_gt_sysfs_pm.c: "failed to add gt%u rps defaults
(%pe)\n",
i915/i915_driver.c: drm_err(>i915->drm, "gt%d:
intel_pcode_init failed %d\n", id, ret);
i915/i915_hwmon.c: snprintf(ddat_gt->name, sizeof(ddat_gt->name),
"i915_gt%u", i);
Then there is a question of naming. Are we okay with GT_XXX or, do we want
intel_gt_, or something completely different. I don't have a strong opinion at
the moment so I'll add some more folks to Cc.
What I'd would like to see tried is to converting all of i915/gt within one
kernel release so we don't have a mish-mash of log formats.
Regards,
Tvrtko
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
index e0365d5562484..1e016fb0117a4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
@@ -13,6 +13,21 @@
struct drm_i915_private;
struct drm_printer;
+#define GT_ERR(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_err(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_WARN(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_warn(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_NOTICE(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_notice(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_INFO(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_info(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_DBG(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_dbg(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
#define GT_TRACE(gt, fmt, ...) do { \
const struct intel_gt *gt__ __maybe_unused = (gt); \
GEM_TRACE("%s " fmt, dev_name(gt__->i915->drm.dev), \
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Add GT oriented dmesg output
On 11/4/2022 10:25 AM, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote:
From: John Harrison
When trying to analyse bug reports from CI, customers, etc. it can be
difficult to work out exactly what is happening on which GT in a
multi-GT system. So add GT oriented debug/error message wrappers. If
used instead of the drm_ equivalents, you get the same output but with
a GT# prefix on it.
Signed-off-by: John Harrison
The only downside to this is that we'll print "GT0: " even on single-GT
devices. We could introduce a gt->info.name and print that, so we could
have it different per-platform, but IMO it's not worth the effort.
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
I think it might be worth getting an ack from one of the maintainers to
make sure we're all aligned on transitioning to these new logging macro
for gt code.
Daniele
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h | 15 +++
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
index e0365d5562484..1e016fb0117a4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h
@@ -13,6 +13,21 @@
struct drm_i915_private;
struct drm_printer;
+#define GT_ERR(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_err(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_WARN(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_warn(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_NOTICE(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_notice(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_INFO(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_info(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id,
##__VA_ARGS__)
+
+#define GT_DBG(_gt, _fmt, ...) \
+ drm_dbg(&(_gt)->i915->drm, "GT%u: " _fmt, (_gt)->info.id, ##__VA_ARGS__)
+
#define GT_TRACE(gt, fmt, ...) do { \
const struct intel_gt *gt__ __maybe_unused = (gt); \
GEM_TRACE("%s " fmt, dev_name(gt__->i915->drm.dev), \
