[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/12] drm/i915: BUG_ON bad PPGTT offset

[Ben Widawsky]

On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 08:37:37PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:48:05AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 01:28:23PM -0700, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:15:30 -0700
> >> > Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Because PPGTT PDEs within the GTT are calculated in cachelines
> >> > > (HW guys consistency ftw) we do a divide which will wreak havoc if this
> >> > > is wrong, and I know that from experience).
> >> > >
> >> > > If/when we move to multiple PPGTTs this will have to become a WARN, and
> >> > > return an error. For now however it should always be considered fatal,
> >> > > and only a developer could hit it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 2 ++
> >> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> >> > > index 50df194..0503f09 100644
> >> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> >> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> >> > > @@ -85,6 +85,8 @@ static int gen6_ppgtt_enable(struct drm_device *dev)
> >> > >   uint32_t pd_entry;
> >> > >   int i;
> >> > >
> >> > > + BUG_ON(ppgtt->pd_offset & 0x3f);
> >> > > +
> >> > >   pd_addr = (gen6_gtt_pte_t __iomem*)dev_priv->gtt.gsm +
> >> > >           ppgtt->pd_offset / sizeof(gen6_gtt_pte_t);
> >> > >   for (i = 0; i < ppgtt->num_pd_entries; i++) {
> >> >
> >> > Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org>
> >>
> >> Queued for -next with the same s/BUG/WARN bikeshed, thanks for the patch.
> >> -Daniel
> >
> > If you're going to change to WARN, please fixup the patch to return
> > early... if (WARN_ON(...)) return
> >
> > The GPU will end up hanging if we've messed this up...
> 
> I don't care about the gpu, only that the logs hit the disc. And I
> don't see how an early return can safe anything in here, since
> something went horribly wrong already anyway.
> -Daniel

Seriously? Feels a bit like this has become an argument for arguments
sake, but: I'd much rather have an assertion fail than a gpu error state
from same random point in time later.

> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center