[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/22] drm/i915/perf: rate limit spurious oa report notice

[Chris Wilson]

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 11:55:24AM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> On 13/05/17 11:08, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 04:43:31PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> >>From: Robert Bragg <robert at sixbynine.org>
> >>
> >>This change is pre-emptively aiming to avoid a potential cause of kernel
> >>logging noise in case some condition were to result in us seeing invalid
> >>OA reports.
> >>
> >>The workaround for the OA unit's tail pointer race condition is what
> >>avoids the primary known cause of invalid reports being seen and with
> >>that in place we aren't expecting to see this notice but it can't be
> >>entirely ruled out.
> >>
> >>Just in case some condition does lead to the notice then it's likely
> >>that it will be triggered repeatedly while attempting to append a
> >>sequence of reports and depending on the configured OA sampling
> >>frequency that might be a large number of repeat notices.
> >>
> >>v2: (Chris) avoid inconsistent warning on throttle with
> >>     printk_ratelimit()
> >>v3: (Matt) init and summarise with stream init/close not driver init/fini
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Robert Bragg <robert at sixbynine.org>
> >>Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
> >I've pushed up to this point as this looks to be the end of the bug
> >fixes and the start of the feature work. However Lionel, then I noticed
> >that you haven't been adding your s-o-b for the patches you've handled,
> >it's just a step to ensure the provenance of every patch entering the
> >kernel through us.
> >-Chris
> >
> 
> I haven't actually touched the gen7 patches (1 to 8)
> The rest should have my s-o-b

It's not about touching, it's about submitting patches for inclusion.
The s-o-b is to say that you have the authority to submit this code.
-Chris
-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre