[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Remove unsafe i915.enable_rc6

[Joonas Lahtinen]

On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 10:48 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 01:00:51PM +0000, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:57:09PM -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On 26/10/17 03:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > It has been many years since the last confirmed sighting (and fix) of an
> > > > RC6 related bug (usually a system hang). Remove the parameter to stop
> > > > users from setting dangerous values, as they often set it during triage
> > > > and end up disabling the entire runtime pm instead (the option is not a
> > > > fine scalpel!).
> > > > 
> > > > Furthermore, it allows users to set known dangerous values which were
> > > > intended for testing and not for production use. For testing, we can
> > > > always patch in the required setting without having to expose ourselves
> > > > to random abuse.
> > > > 
> > > > v2: Fixup NEEDS_WaRsDisableCoarsePowerGating fumble, and document the
> > > > lack of ilk support better.
> > > > v3: Clear intel_info->rc6p if we don't support rc6 itself.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> > > > Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > I think that for execution/debug on early silicon we might still want the
> > > ability to turn features like RC6 off. Maybe we can add a debug kconfig to
> > > force info->has_rc6 = 0? Not a blocker to this patch but worth considering
> > > IMO.
> > 
> > Most of the BIOSes I've seen on our RVPs have had an option to disable
> > RC6.
> 
> BIOS option don't block our code to run and set some MMIOs.
> Not sure how the GPU will behave on such cases.
> 
> I like the idea of removing some and keeping the parameters clean.
> But there are few ones like RC6 and disable_power_wells that are very
> useful on platform enabling and also when assisting others to debug issues.
> 
> For instance right now that we fixed RC6 on CNL someone told that
> he believe seeing more hangs, so I immediately asked to boot with
> i915.enable_rc6=0 to double check. It is easier and straighforward
> to direct them to the unsafe param than to ask them to compile the code
> with different options or to use some BIOS options that we are not sure.
> 
> Also on bug triage some options like this are helpful.
> 
> Also BIOS and compile are saved flags. So if you need to do a quick test
> you have to save it, and then unsave later. Parameters are very convinient
> for 1 boot only check.

It's convenient for sure, but the unsafe module parameters seems to be
finding their way into way too many HOWTOs, and from there to some
"productized" use-cases. Chris states that setting .enable_rc6=0 to
solving an issue on publicly shipping products has been some years ago,
so I don't see a need for carrying this.

We shouldn't allow the convenience of not having to change one line and
recompile kernel during development to affect the end-users who are
Googling how to get the best performance out of their hardware (I could
mention some distro here).

This seems the like the best option as I don't think introducing kernel
parameters that only exists on debug builds would be too convenient
either. It'd maybe just add more confusion.

Regards, Joonas
-- 
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation