[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Add control flags to i915_handle_error()

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Michel Thierry (2018-03-20 00:39:35)
> On 3/19/2018 5:18 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Not all callers want the GPU error to handled in the same way, so expose
> > a control parameter. In the first instance, some callers do not want the
> > heavyweight error capture so add a bit to request the state to be
> > captured and saved.
> > 
> > v2: Pass msg down to i915_reset/i915_reset_engine so that we include the
> > reason for the reset in the dev_notice(), superseding the earlier option
> > to not print that notice.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee at intel.com>
> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at intel.com>
> > Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c              |  4 +--
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c                  | 17 +++++------
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h                  | 10 +++---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c                  | 39 +++++++++++++-----------
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hangcheck.c           | 13 ++++----
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_hangcheck.c | 13 +++-----
> >   6 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> > 
> ...
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hangcheck.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hangcheck.c
> > index 42e45ae87393..fd0ffb8328d0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hangcheck.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_hangcheck.c
> > @@ -246,9 +246,8 @@ engine_stuck(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, u64 acthd)
> >        */
> >       tmp = I915_READ_CTL(engine);
> >       if (tmp & RING_WAIT) {
> > -             i915_handle_error(dev_priv, 0,
> > -                               "Kicking stuck wait on %s",
> > -                               engine->name);
> > +             i915_handle_error(dev_priv, BIT(engine->id), 0,
> > +                               "stuck wait on %s", engine->name);
> Before we were not resetting anything here, is this change on purpose? 
> (if it is, it's worth adding it to the commit msg since it's changing 
> behavior).
> 
> >               I915_WRITE_CTL(engine, tmp);
> >               return ENGINE_WAIT_KICK;
> >       } > @@ -258,8 +257,8 @@ engine_stuck(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, u64 
> acthd)
> >               default:
> >                       return ENGINE_DEAD;
> >               case 1:
> > -                     i915_handle_error(dev_priv, 0,
> > -                                       "Kicking stuck semaphore on %s",
> > +                     i915_handle_error(dev_priv, ALL_ENGINES, 0,
> Same here,

Both are functionally no-op changes, as they are only for !per-engine
platforms (unless someone manages to send just the wrong type of garbage
to the GPU). I just thought it interesting to document that wait-event
needs a local kick and the wait-sema needs to kick the other engines.
-Chris