Re: [PATCH 01/15] drm/i915/guc: Tidy guc_log_control

[Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>]

On 2/27/2018 6:22 PM, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> We plan to decouple log runtime (mapping + relay) from verbosity control.
> Let's tidy the code now to reduce the churn in the following patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com>
> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com>
> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c  | 11 ++----
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h |  3 +-
>   3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 33fbf3965309..58983cafaece 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -2500,13 +2500,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data, u64 *val)
Should we name this i915_guc_log_level_get instead? and other related 
functions too?
>   {
>   	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
>   
> -	if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
> +	if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv))
>   		return -ENODEV;
>   
> -	if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma)
> -		return -EINVAL;
> -
> -	*val = i915_modparams.guc_log_level;
> +	*val = intel_guc_log_control_get(&dev_priv->guc);
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }
> @@ -2515,10 +2512,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val)
>   {
>   	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
>   
> -	if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
> +	if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv))
>   		return -ENODEV;
>   
> -	return intel_guc_log_control(&dev_priv->guc, val);
> +	return intel_guc_log_control_set(&dev_priv->guc, val);
>   }
>   
>   DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_guc_log_control_fops,
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> index 7b5074e2120c..22a05320817b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c
> @@ -657,52 +657,55 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc)
>   	i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&guc->log.vma);
>   }
>   
> -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val)
> +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc)
Should we be passing guc_log as parameter and implement guc_log_to_guc() 
function.
> +{
> +	GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma);
> +	GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0);
> +
> +	return i915_modparams.guc_log_level;
> +}
> +
> +#define GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x)		(x > 0)
> +#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x)	(GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) ? x - 1 : 0)
This is bit misleading, can we make this macro return -1 if logging is 
to be disabled. That way guc_log_control can be invoked with
single signed 32bit parameter.
> +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val)
>   {
>   	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc);
> -	bool enable_logging = control_val > 0;
> -	u32 verbosity;
>   	int ret;
>   
> -	if (!guc->log.vma)
> -		return -ENODEV;
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN != 0);
> +	GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma);
> +	GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0);
>   
> -	BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN);
> -	if (control_val > 1 + GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)
> +	/*
> +	 * GuC is recognizing log levels starting from 0 to max, we're using 0
> +	 * as indication that logging should be disablded.
> +	 */
> +	if (GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN ||
This check seems unnecessary as we currently don't have negative output 
for G_L_L_T_V macro.
If we add negative value there, will need to remove this check.
> +	    GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> -	/* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */
> -	if (!enable_logging && !i915_modparams.guc_log_level)
> -		return 0;
> +	mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
>   
> -	verbosity = enable_logging ? control_val - 1 : 0;
> +	if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level == val) {
> +		ret = 0;
> +		goto out_unlock;
> +	}
>   
> -	ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
> -	if (ret)
> -		return ret;
>   	intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
> -	ret = guc_log_control(guc, enable_logging, verbosity);
> +	ret = guc_log_control(guc, GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val),
> +			      GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val));
>   	intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
> -	mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
> +	if (ret)
> +		goto out_unlock;
>   
> -	if (ret < 0) {
> -		DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_logging_control action failed %d\n", ret);
> -		return ret;
> -	}
> +	i915_modparams.guc_log_level = val;
>   
> -	if (enable_logging) {
> -		i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 1 + verbosity;
> +	mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
>   
> -		/*
> -		 * If log was disabled at boot time, then the relay channel file
> -		 * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would
> -		 * not have been enabled. Try again now, just in case.
> -		 */
> +	if (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && !guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) {
>   		ret = guc_log_late_setup(guc);
> -		if (ret < 0) {
> -			DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC log late setup failed %d\n", ret);
> -			return ret;
> -		}
> +		if (ret)
> +			goto out;
>   
>   		/* GuC logging is currently the only user of Guc2Host interrupts */
>   		mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
> @@ -710,7 +713,7 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val)
>   		gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv);
>   		intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
>   		mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
> -	} else {
> +	} else if (!GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) {
>   		/*
>   		 * Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an
>   		 * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer
> @@ -718,11 +721,13 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val)
>   		 * buffer state and then collect the left over logs.
>   		 */
>   		guc_flush_logs(guc);
> -
> -		/* As logging is disabled, update log level to reflect that */
> -		i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 0;
>   	}
>   
> +	return 0;
> +
> +out_unlock:
> +	mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
> +out:
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h
> index dab0e949567a..141ce9ca22ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h
> @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc);
>   void intel_guc_log_init_early(struct intel_guc *guc);
>   int intel_guc_log_relay_create(struct intel_guc *guc);
>   void intel_guc_log_relay_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc);
> -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val);
> +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc);
> +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val);
>   void i915_guc_log_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>   void i915_guc_log_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
>   

-- 
Thanks,
Sagar

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx