Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: shut up gen8+ SDE irq dmesg noise

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: shut up gen8+ SDE irq dmesg noise
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 18:22:43 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151023152243.GA26517@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uE+Xi6gsThu05vhy06aHDWcGg55pqcSLU-MVA02fTvfCA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:42:19PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Ville Syrjälä
> <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:23:12AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 12:21:37PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:56:12AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> > >> We get tons of cases where the master interrupt handler apparently set
> >> > >> a bit, with the SDEIIR agreeing. No idea what's going on there, but
> >> > >> it's consistent on gen8+, no one seems to care about it and it's
> >> > >> making CI results flaky.
> >> > >
> >> > > Just delete the message and delete them all. There isn't anything we can
> >> > > do and if anybody actually cared (which apparently they didn't in the
> >> > > first place), they could just trace the mmio.
> >> >
> >> > Except this one is a regression, introduced by a bisected commit, and
> >> > suspiciously the errors pop up during aux transfers.
> >>
> >> dp aux is a red herring very likely, since it's just the source of a _lot_
> >> of sde interrupts.
> >>
> >> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92084
> >>
> >> No one demonstrated any bad side-effects of this, let's shut it up (but
> >> keep the breadcrumb in debug logs in case) and move on to other bugs. We
> >> have enough.
> >
> > I was still waiting for an answer to my latest idea how to avoid the
> > error. Would have been a very simple thing to test for anyone with the
> > hardware.
> 
> We can still do that ofc. But this was a regression, trivial to fix
> (we didn't have the message before at all),

The regressing patch change didn't add the message, so there was a clear
change in behaviour, and now it's papered over.

> creating noise in our CI
> and 16 months old. Our rule is that an interim solution/revert should
> be applied latest within 1 week, this was more than overdue.
> 
> Yep, QA is back and I'll make sure everyone knows ;-)
> -Daniel
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx