[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 15/20] drm/i915: Debugfs support for GuC logging control
Goel, Akash
akash.goel at intel.com
Fri Aug 12 17:08:19 UTC 2016
On 8/12/2016 9:27 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 12/08/16 07:25, akash.goel at intel.com wrote:
>> From: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble at intel.com>
>>
>> This patch provides debugfs interface i915_guc_output_control for
>> on the fly enabling/disabling of logging in GuC firmware and controlling
>> the verbosity level of logs.
>> The value written to the file, should have bit 0 set to enable logging
>> and
>> bits 4-7 should contain the verbosity info.
>>
>> v2: Add a forceful flush, to collect left over logs, on disabling
>> logging.
>> Useful for Validation.
>>
>> v3: Besides minor cleanup, implement read method for the debugfs file and
>> set the guc_log_level to -1 when logging is disabled. (Tvrtko)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble at intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Akash Goel <akash.goel at intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++-
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 63
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> index 14e0dcf..f472fbcd3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> @@ -2674,6 +2674,47 @@ static int i915_guc_log_dump(struct seq_file
>> *m, void *data)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data, u64 *val)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_device *dev = data;
>> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
>> +
>> + if (!dev_priv->guc.log.obj)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + *val = i915.guc_log_level;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_device *dev = data;
>> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev->struct_mutex);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + if (!dev_priv->guc.log.obj) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto end;
>> + }
>> +
>> + intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
>> + ret = i915_guc_log_control(dev_priv, val);
>> + intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
>> +
>> +end:
>> + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_guc_log_control_fops,
>> + i915_guc_log_control_get, i915_guc_log_control_set,
>> + "%lld\n");
>> +
>> static int i915_edp_psr_status(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
>> {
>> struct drm_info_node *node = m->private;
>> @@ -5477,7 +5518,8 @@ static const struct i915_debugfs_files {
>> {"i915_fbc_false_color", &i915_fbc_fc_fops},
>> {"i915_dp_test_data", &i915_displayport_test_data_fops},
>> {"i915_dp_test_type", &i915_displayport_test_type_fops},
>> - {"i915_dp_test_active", &i915_displayport_test_active_fops}
>> + {"i915_dp_test_active", &i915_displayport_test_active_fops},
>> + {"i915_guc_log_control", &i915_guc_log_control_fops}
>> };
>>
>> void intel_display_crc_init(struct drm_device *dev)
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
>> index 4a75c16..041cf68 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
>> @@ -195,6 +195,16 @@ static int host2guc_force_logbuffer_flush(struct
>> intel_guc *guc)
>> return host2guc_action(guc, data, 2);
>> }
>>
>> +static int host2guc_logging_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u32
>> control_val)
>> +{
>> + u32 data[2];
>> +
>> + data[0] = HOST2GUC_ACTION_UK_LOG_ENABLE_LOGGING;
>> + data[1] = control_val;
>> +
>> + return host2guc_action(guc, data, 2);
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Initialise, update, or clear doorbell data shared with the GuC
>> *
>> @@ -1538,3 +1548,56 @@ void i915_guc_register(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv)
>> guc_log_late_setup(&dev_priv->guc);
>> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
>> }
>> +
>> +int i915_guc_log_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u64
>> control_val)
>> +{
>> + union guc_log_control log_param;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + log_param.logging_enabled = control_val & 0x1;
>> + log_param.verbosity = (control_val >> 4) & 0xF;
>
> Maybe "log_param.value = control_val" would also work since
> guc_log_control is conveniently defined as an union. Doesn't matter though.
>
>> +
>> + if (log_param.verbosity < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN ||
>> + log_param.verbosity > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + /* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */
>> + if (!log_param.logging_enabled && (i915.guc_log_level < 0))
>> + return 0;
>
> I wonder if it would work and maybe look nicer to generalize as:
>
> int guc_log_level;
>
> guc_log_level = log_param.logging_enabled ? log_param.verbosity : -1;
> if (i915.guc_log_level == guc_log_level)
> return 0;
Fine, will try to refactor the code as per your suggestions.
Thanks for the suggestions.
>> +
>> + ret = host2guc_logging_control(&dev_priv->guc, log_param.value);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("host2guc action failed %d\n", ret);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + i915.guc_log_level = log_param.verbosity;
>
> This would then become i915.guc_log_level = guc_log_level.
>
>> +
>> + /* If log_level was set as -1 at boot time, then the relay
>> channel file
>> + * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would
>> not have
>> + * been enabled.
>> + */
>> + if (!dev_priv->guc.log.relay_chan) {
>> + ret = guc_log_late_setup(&dev_priv->guc);
>> + if (!ret)
>> + gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv);
>> + } else if (!log_param.logging_enabled) {
>> + /* Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an
>> + * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer
>> + * which is yet to be captured. So request GuC to update the log
>> + * buffer state and then collect the left over logs.
>> + */
>> + i915_guc_flush_logs(dev_priv);
>> +
>> + /* GuC would have updated the log buffer by now, so capture
>> it */
>> + i915_guc_capture_logs(dev_priv);
>> +
>> + /* As logging is disabled, update the log level to reflect
>> that */
>> + i915.guc_log_level = -1;
>> + } else {
>> + /* In case interrupts were disabled, enable them now */
>> + gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv);
>> + }
>
> And this block would need some adjustments with my guc_log_level idea.
>
> Well not sure, see what you think. I am just attracted to the idea of
> operating in the same value domain as much as possible for readability
> and simplicity. Maybe it would not improve anything, I did not bother
> with typing it all to check.
>
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
>> index d3a5447..2f8c408 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h
>> @@ -186,5 +186,6 @@ void i915_guc_capture_logs(struct drm_i915_private
>> *dev_priv);
>> void i915_guc_flush_logs(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>> void i915_guc_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>> void i915_guc_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>> +int i915_guc_log_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u64
>> control_val);
>>
>> #endif
>>
>
> Patch looks correct as is, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>
> Although I would be happier though if my suggestion to use the same
> value domain as for the module parameter was used. In other words:
>
> {"i915_guc_log_level", &i915_guc_log_control_fops}
>
> ...
>
> int i915_guc_log_control(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u64
> control_val)
> ...
> int guc_log_level = (int)control_val;
> ...
> log_param.logging_enabled = guc_log_level > -1;
> log_param.verbosity = guc_log_level > -1 ? guc_log_level : 0;
> ...
>
> It think it would be simpler for the user and developer to only have to
> think about one set of values when dealing with guc logging.
>
Really nice suggestion, but as you mentioned below this log control
interface is most likely to get extended in near future.
Best regards
Akash
> But maybe extensions to guc_log_control are imminent and expected so it
> would not be worth it in the long run. No idea.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list