Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 03/12] tools/intel_gpu_top: Restore user friendly error message

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 27/09/2023 21:13, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 02:44:28PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> We have a nice error message displayed when an user with insufficient
>> permissions tries to run the tool, but that got lost while Meteorlake
>> support was added. Bring it back in.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> Cc: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
>> ---
>> tools/intel_gpu_top.c | 10 +++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/intel_gpu_top.c b/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
>> index 87e9681e53b4..e01355f90458 100644
>> --- a/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
>> +++ b/tools/intel_gpu_top.c
>> @@ -554,9 +554,11 @@ static int get_num_gts(uint64_t type)
>>
>>         close(fd);
>>     }
>> -    assert(!errno || errno == ENOENT);
>> -    assert(cnt > 0);
>> -    errno = 0;
>> +
>> +    if (!cnt)
>> +        cnt = errno;
>> +    else
>> +        errno = 0;
> 
> ENOENT is the only way this logic is checking for num_gts.
> 
> In this case error is propagated only if cnt == 0. What if cnt=1 and we 
> get an error (other than ENOENT)? Should we ignore that?

If cnt >= 1 then at least one tile was found so the errno happened while 
probing for further tiles. So on single tile parts it can be ignored. On 
multi-tile parts it cannot really happen, or even if it happens 
situation would simply be "why is only one tile showing". If we want to 
cover this impossible/unlikely case then maybe like this:

	if (!cnt || (errno && errno != ENOENT))
		cnt = -errno;

> I had something like this in mind for the regression (and sorry this 
> fell through the cracks)
> 
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/541406/?series=118973&rev=1

Oh back in June!

I think yours work too, in which case it's a matter of a style choice 
with which one to go. I don't have a strong preference - above would be 
a bit more compact, while I think it still succinctly expresses the 
failure condition ("nothing found or unexpected error while probing for 
remote tiles").

Regards,

Tvrtko

> 
> Regards,
> Umesh
> 
>>
>>     return cnt;
>> }
>> @@ -590,6 +592,8 @@ static int pmu_init(struct engines *engines)
>>     engines->fd = -1;
>>     engines->num_counters = 0;
>>     engines->num_gts = get_num_gts(type);
>> +    if (engines->num_gts <= 0)
>> +        return -1;
>>
>>     engines->irq.config = I915_PMU_INTERRUPTS;
>>     fd = _open_pmu(type, engines->num_counters, &engines->irq, 
>> engines->fd);
>> -- 
>> 2.39.2
>>