[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 1/5] drm/i915: Add engine reset count in get-reset-stats ioctl

[Carlos Santa]

On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 13:34 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 21/02/2019 02:58, Carlos Santa wrote:
> > From: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
> > 
> > Users/tests relying on the total reset count will start seeing a
> > smaller
> > number since most of the hangs can be handled by engine reset.
> > Note that if reset engine x, context a running on engine y will be
> > unaware
> > and unaffected.
> > 
> > To start the discussion, include just a total engine reset count.
> > If it
> > is deemed useful, it can be extended to report each engine
> > separately.
> > 
> > Our igt's gem_reset_stats test will need changes to ignore the pad
> > field,
> > since it can now return reset_engine_count.
> > 
> > v2: s/engine_reset/reset_engine/, use union in uapi to not break
> > compatibility.
> > v3: Keep rejecting attempts to use pad as input (Antonio)
> > v4: Rebased.
> > v5: Rebased.
> > 
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano at intel.com>
> > Cc: Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Carlos Santa <carlos.santa at intel.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> >   include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h             |  6 +++++-
> >   2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
> > index 459f8eae1c39..cbfe8f2eb3f2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.c
> > @@ -1889,6 +1889,8 @@ int i915_gem_context_reset_stats_ioctl(struct
> > drm_device *dev,
> >   	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> >   	struct drm_i915_reset_stats *args = data;
> >   	struct i915_gem_context *ctx;
> > +	struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
> > +	enum intel_engine_id id;
> >   	int ret;
> >   
> >   	if (args->flags || args->pad)
> > @@ -1907,10 +1909,16 @@ int
> > i915_gem_context_reset_stats_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev,
> >   	 * we should wrap the hangstats with a seqlock.
> >   	 */
> >   
> > -	if (capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > +	if (capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> >   		args->reset_count = i915_reset_count(&dev_priv-
> > >gpu_error);
> > -	else
> > +		for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id)
> > +			args->reset_engine_count +=
> > +				i915_reset_engine_count(&dev_priv-
> > >gpu_error,
> > +							engine);
> 
> If access to global GPU reset count is privileged, why is access to 
> global engine reset count not? It seems to be fundamentally same
> level 
> of data leakage.

But access to global engine reset count (i915_reset_engine_count) is
indeed priviledged. They both are inside if(CAP_SYS_ADMIN){...}, or
maybe I am missing something?

> 
> If we wanted to provide some numbers to unprivileged users I think
> we 
> would need to store some counters per file_priv/context and return
> those 
> when !CAP_SYS_ADMIN.

The question would be why access to global GPU reset count is
priviledged then? I can't think of a reason why it should be
priviledged. I think the new counter (per engine) should fall in the
same category as the global GPU reset one, right? So, can we make them
both unpriviledged? 


> 
> > +	} else {
> >   		args->reset_count = 0;
> > +		args->reset_engine_count = 0;
> > +	}
> >   
> >   	args->batch_active = atomic_read(&ctx->guilty_count);
> >   	args->batch_pending = atomic_read(&ctx->active_count);
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> > b/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> > index cc03ef9f885f..3f2c89740b0e 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h
> > @@ -1642,7 +1642,11 @@ struct drm_i915_reset_stats {
> >   	/* Number of batches lost pending for execution, for this
> > context */
> >   	__u32 batch_pending;
> >   
> > -	__u32 pad;
> > +	union {
> > +		__u32 pad;
> > +		/* Engine resets since boot/module reload, for all
> > contexts */
> > +		__u32 reset_engine_count;
> > +	};
> 
> Chris pointed out in some other review that anonymous unions are not 
> friendly towards C++ compilers.
> 
> Not sure what is the best option here. Renaming the field could
> break 
> old userspace building against newer headers. Is that acceptable?
> 

I dug up some old comments from Chris and he stated that recycling the
union like that would be a bad idea since that would make the pad field
an output only parameter thus invalidating gem_reset_stats...

Why can't we simply add a new field __u32 reset_engine_count; as part
of the drm_i915_reset_stats struct?

Regards,
Carlos

> >   };
> >   
> >   struct drm_i915_gem_userptr {
> > 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tvrtko