[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/28] drm/i915/gt: Show all active timelines for debugging

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 17/11/2020 13:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-11-17 12:59:44)
>>
>> On 17/11/2020 11:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> +             if (show_request) {
>>> +                     list_for_each_entry_safe(rq, rn, &tl->requests, link)
>>> +                             show_request(m, rq,
>>> +                                          i915_request_is_active(rq) ? "  E" :
>>> +                                          i915_request_is_ready(rq) ? "  Q" :
>>> +                                          "  U");
>>
>> Can we get some consistency between the category counts and flags.
>>
>> s/count/queued/ -> Q
> 
> Hmm, if you are sure. Q would then not match with the engine info.

Sure? Not really. What do we have there? You mean "!/*/+/-" flags? Or 
"E/Q/V" from intel_execlists_show_requests? Right, 'Q' there means 
runnable and it doesn't show queued at all. Yes, why not change everything.

> Still favouring count over queued; I think count indicates more clearly
> that it is the superset, but queued may imply it excludes ready and
> definitely sounds like it should not include inflight.

I am okay with that.

>> ready -> R (also matches with term runnable)
>> active -> E ? hmmm E is consistent with the engine info dump.
>>
>> Not ideal but perhaps every bit of more consistency is good.
> 
> Not sold yet, but not happy with the current flags either.
> 
> If we go with 'R' for ready, we should also update engine info.

Okay we seem to have plenty of options.

U or Q - queued/unready
R or Q - ready/queued (to backend) (Rv/Qv for virtual?)
E or R, or I - executing/running/in-flight

Q -> R -> E
U -> R -> E
U -> Q -> E/R/I
U -> R -> E/I

I don't know.. either one as long as all places use the same.

Regards,

Tvrtko