Re: [PATCH v2] drm/xe/guc: Demote uncorrectable local error log to info

[Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2026 at 09:50:48AM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/17/2026 3:53 PM, Varun Gupta wrote:
> > The UNCORRECTABLE_LOCAL_ERROR notification sent by the GuC indicates a
> > local, queue-level context termination rather than a global device or
> > driver failure. This can be triggered as part of expected recovery flows,
> > including intentional fault-injection tests.
> > 
> > Printing this at ERROR level is too noisy and causes false-positive
> > dmesg-warn failures in CI. Switch the log level to INFO, matching the
> > adjacent CAT error handler.
> > 
> > v2:
> >   - Also ratelimit the GUC_ID_UNKNOWN to match the CAT error handler.
> >     (Himal)
> > 
> > Fixes: 4e57574fa3a3 ("drm/xe/guc: Handle GuC local uncorrectable error notifications")
> > Signed-off-by: Varun Gupta <varun.gupta@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c | 8 ++++----
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> > index f3ba8abfc228..6144a1767f10 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c
> > @@ -3487,7 +3487,7 @@ int xe_guc_uncorrectable_error_handler(struct xe_guc *guc, u32 *msg, u32 len)
> >  	guc_id = msg[0];
> >  
> >  	if (guc_id == GUC_ID_UNKNOWN) {
> 
> btw, shouldn't we check for guc_id >= GUC_ID_UNKNOWN?
> 
> > -		xe_gt_err(gt, "GuC: Uncorrectable local error with unknown GuC id\n");
> > +		xe_gt_err_ratelimited(gt, "GuC: Uncorrectable local error with unknown GuC id\n");
> >  		return 0;
> 
> if GuC shouldn't ever pass invalid guc-id here, as spec says this action is for:
> 
> 	"Notify the context which caused an uncorrectable local error to KMD"
> 
> then IMO instead of ratelimiting this error, we should rather escalate this
> to -EPROTO to force the error dump and reset from the CTB layer, no? 

Himal, next time please do not rush with committing patches like this.

There were 2 unadressed comments in it.

> 
> >  	}
> >  
> > @@ -3495,9 +3495,9 @@ int xe_guc_uncorrectable_error_handler(struct xe_guc *guc, u32 *msg, u32 len)
> >  	if (unlikely(!q))
> >  		return -EPROTO;
> >  
> > -	xe_gt_err(gt,
> > -		  "GuC: Uncorrectable local error! guc_id=%d class=%s, logical_mask=0x%x",
> > -		  guc_id, xe_hw_engine_class_to_str(q->class), q->logical_mask);
> > +	xe_gt_info(gt,

Again, this is a no no!

This is not a CAT ERROR that is expected in any page fault caused by the user.
If we hit this case it is a guc identified uncorrectable error!

Only come back with this idea if we can really justify why you can demote **all**
guc uncoorrectable errors to this.

The errors you mentioned in the commit message are not a good reason and should
be handled by the testing tools.

The patch was removed from the drm-xe-next. Please get back to the drawing board.

Thanks,
Rodrigo.

> > +		   "GuC: Uncorrectable local error! guc_id=%d class=%s, logical_mask=0x%x",
> > +		   guc_id, xe_hw_engine_class_to_str(q->class), q->logical_mask);
> >  
> >  	trace_xe_guc_uncorrectable_error(q);
> >  
>