Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc: do not capture error state on exiting context

[Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>]

On 27.09.2022 01:34, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
>
>
> On 9/26/2022 3:44 PM, Andi Shyti wrote:
>> Hi Andrzej,
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 11:54:09PM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>> Capturing error state is time consuming (up to 350ms on DG2), so it 
>>> should
>>> be avoided if possible. Context reset triggered by context removal is a
>>> good example.
>>> With this patch multiple igt tests will not timeout and should run 
>>> faster.
>>>
>>> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/1551
>>> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/3952
>>> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/5891
>>> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/6268
>>> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/6281
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
>> fine for me:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Just to be on the safe side, can we also have the ack from any of
>> the GuC folks? Daniele, John?
>>
>> Andi
>>
>>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 3 ++-
>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> 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 22ba66e48a9b01..cb58029208afe1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>> @@ -4425,7 +4425,8 @@ static void guc_handle_context_reset(struct 
>>> intel_guc *guc,
>>>       trace_intel_context_reset(ce);
>>>         if (likely(!intel_context_is_banned(ce))) {
>>> -        capture_error_state(guc, ce);
>>> +        if (!intel_context_is_exiting(ce))
>>> +            capture_error_state(guc, ce);
>>>           guc_context_replay(ce);
>
> You definitely don't want to replay requests of a context that is 
> going away.

My intention was to just avoid error capture, but that's even better, 
only condition change:
-        if (likely(!intel_context_is_banned(ce))) {
+       if (likely(intel_context_is_schedulable(ce)))  {

>
> This seems at least in part due to 
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/487531/, where we replaced the 
> "context_ban" with "context_exiting". There are several places where 
> we skipped operations if the context was banned (here included) which 
> are now not covered anymore for exiting contexts. Maybe we need a new 
> checker function to check both flags in places where we don't care why 
> the context is being removed (ban vs exiting), just that it is?
>
> Daniele
>
>>>       } else {
>>>           drm_info(&guc_to_gt(guc)->i915->drm,

And maybe degrade above to drm_dbg, to avoid spamming dmesg?

Regards
Andrzej


>>> -- 
>>> 2.34.1
>