[PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Do not complain about stale reset notifications

[PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Do not complain about stale reset notifications

[John.C.Harrison]

From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>

It is possible for reset notifications to arrive for a context that is
in the process of being banned. So don't flag these as an error, just
report it as informational (because it is still useful to know that
resets are happening even if they are being ignored).

Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
index b3a429a92c0d..3a4a87d1c89c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -4022,10 +4022,10 @@ static void guc_handle_context_reset(struct intel_guc *guc,
 		capture_error_state(guc, ce);
 		guc_context_replay(ce);
 	} else {
-		drm_err(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm,
-			"Invalid GuC engine reset notificaion for 0x%04X on %s: banned = %d, blocked = %d",
-			ce->guc_id.id, ce->engine->name, intel_context_is_banned(ce),
-			context_blocked(ce));
+		drm_info(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm,
+			 "Invalid GuC engine reset notification for 0x%04X on %s: banned = %d, blocked = %d",
+			 ce->guc_id.id, ce->engine->name, intel_context_is_banned(ce),
+			 context_blocked(ce));
 	}
 }
 
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: Do not complain about stale reset notifications

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 10/02/2022 21:47, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
> 
> It is possible for reset notifications to arrive for a context that is
> in the process of being banned. So don't flag these as an error, just
> report it as informational (because it is still useful to know that
> resets are happening even if they are being ignored).

Is the "invalid" in the log message correct then or it should be 
something slightly different? Delayed? Ignored? "Ignoring .. for banned.." ?

Regards,

Tvrtko

> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 8 ++++----
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> index b3a429a92c0d..3a4a87d1c89c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> @@ -4022,10 +4022,10 @@ static void guc_handle_context_reset(struct intel_guc *guc,
>   		capture_error_state(guc, ce);
>   		guc_context_replay(ce);
>   	} else {
> -		drm_err(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm,
> -			"Invalid GuC engine reset notificaion for 0x%04X on %s: banned = %d, blocked = %d",
> -			ce->guc_id.id, ce->engine->name, intel_context_is_banned(ce),
> -			context_blocked(ce));
> +		drm_info(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm,
> +			 "Invalid GuC engine reset notification for 0x%04X on %s: banned = %d, blocked = %d",
> +			 ce->guc_id.id, ce->engine->name, intel_context_is_banned(ce),
> +			 context_blocked(ce));
>   	}
>   }
>