On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 05:05:39PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> As we seek the guilty batch using request and hangcheck
> score, this code is not needed anymore.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 91
> ++-------------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index a46a1a7..8637898 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -2241,70 +2241,6 @@ i915_gem_request_remove_from_client(struct
> drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> spin_unlock(&file_priv->mm.lock);
> }
>
> -static bool i915_head_inside_object(u32 acthd, struct drm_i915_gem_object
> *obj,
> - struct i915_address_space *vm)
> -{
> - if (acthd >= i915_gem_obj_offset(obj, vm) &&
> - acthd < i915_gem_obj_offset(obj, vm) + obj->base.size)
> - return true;
> -
> - return false;
> -}
> -
> -static bool i915_head_inside_request(const u32 acthd_unmasked,
> - const u32 request_start,
> - const u32 request_end)
> -{
> - const u32 acthd = acthd_unmasked & HEAD_ADDR;
> -
> - if (request_start < request_end) {
> - if (acthd >= request_start && acthd < request_end)
> - return true;
> - } else if (request_start > request_end) {
> - if (acthd >= request_start || acthd < request_end)
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> - return false;
> -}
> -
> -static struct i915_address_space *
> -request_to_vm(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> -{
> - struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = request->ring->dev->dev_private;
> - struct i915_address_space *vm;
> -
> - if (request->ctx)
> - vm = request->ctx->vm;
> - else
> - vm = &dev_priv->gtt.base;
> -
> - return vm;
> -}
> -
> -static bool i915_request_guilty(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request,
> - const u32 acthd, bool *inside)
> -{
> - /* There is a possibility that unmasked head address
> - * pointing inside the ring, matches the batch_obj address range.
> - * However this is extremely unlikely.
> - */
> - if (request->batch_obj) {
> - if (i915_head_inside_object(acthd, request->batch_obj,
> - request_to_vm(request))) {
> - *inside = true;
> - return true;
> - }
> - }
> -
> - if (i915_head_inside_request(acthd, request->head, request->tail)) {
> - *inside = false;
> - return true;
> - }
> -
> - return false;
> -}
> -
> static bool i915_context_is_banned(const struct i915_hw_context *ctx)
> {
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv;
> @@ -2329,30 +2265,11 @@ static bool i915_context_is_banned(const struct
> i915_hw_context *ctx)
> return false;
> }
>
> -static void i915_set_reset_status(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
> - struct drm_i915_gem_request *request,
> - const bool guilty)
> +static void i915_set_reset_status(struct i915_hw_context *ctx,
> + const bool guilty)
> {
> - const u32 acthd = intel_ring_get_active_head(ring);
> - bool inside;
> - unsigned long offset = 0;
> - struct i915_hw_context *ctx = request->ctx;
> struct i915_ctx_hang_stats *hs;
>
> - if (request->batch_obj)
> - offset = i915_gem_obj_offset(request->batch_obj,
> - request_to_vm(request));
> -
> - if (guilty &&
> - i915_request_guilty(request, acthd, &inside)) {
> - DRM_DEBUG("%s hung %s bo (0x%lx ctx %d) at 0x%x\n",
> - ring->name,
> - inside ? "inside" : "flushing",
> - offset,
> - ctx ? ctx->id : 0,
> - acthd);
> - }
> -
> if (WARN_ON(!ctx))
> return;
>
> @@ -2407,10 +2324,10 @@ static void i915_gem_reset_ring_status(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>
> ring_hung = ring->hangcheck.score >= HANGCHECK_SCORE_RING_HUNG;
>
> - i915_set_reset_status(ring, request, ring_hung);
> + i915_set_reset_status(request->ctx, ring_hung);
>
> list_for_each_entry_continue(request, &ring->request_list, list)
> - i915_set_reset_status(ring, request, false);
> + i915_set_reset_status(request->ctx, false);
> }
>
> static void i915_gem_reset_ring_cleanup(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
I can't say that I'm a huge fan of calling i915_set_reset_status twice
(I bit my lip while reading the last patch). To me it suggests that the
interface probably ended up a bit poorly designed. I can live with it
though, I just couldn't bite my lip for 2 patches in a row :-)
I guess I've missed how this solves the issue I poked about in the
original series. However, the code overall is a big improvement, and
even in the unlikely case that I am not just being blind to your
solution- the odds of having multiple hung rings are slim enough that I
can live with that either way.
I did put some requests in the patches. Each already had an
unconditional r-b. Therefore, the series is:
Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
Last word: As I've discussed with Chris too, I am overall a bit wary of
removing any use upon hardware for doing a lot of these error triage,
detection and collection functions. I really like that no matter how
bonghits our driver gets, we can read certain registers to try to figure
things out. I say this now since I think after this series I will no
longer have a leg to stand on in the, we shouldn't use requests for
error collection, discussion. Thanks for reading my rant.
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
