Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 2:52 AM Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 08:20:54PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/31/22 6:11 PM, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:07 AM Ville Syrjälä
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 08:42:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ville Syrjälä
> > >>> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:55:39PM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:59 AM Ville Syrjälä
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron
> > >>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä
> > > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
> >
> > heres follow-up to V6:
> > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied
> > bits (thanks)
> > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
> >
> > It excludes:
> > nouveau parts (immature)
> > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
> >
> > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his
> > Reviewed-by.
> >
> > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest
> > separately.
> > >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> > >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug
> > >> prints are
> > >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in
> > >> /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> > >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> > > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the
> > > same,
> > > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books.
> > > We've got a
> > > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right
> > > now
> > > because of this.
> > >
> > > BR,
> > > Jani.
> > >
> > >
> > That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this
> > change some
> > of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to
> > manually enable
> > them?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Jason
> > >>>
> > >>> Im just seeing this now.
> > >>> Any new details ?
> > >> No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
> > >> about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
> > >> we need this working before 6.1 is released.
> > >>
> > >> Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
> > >> (at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
> > >> can't think what would make i915 any more special.
> > >>
> > > So, I should note -
> > > 99% of my time & energy on this dyndbg + drm patchset
> > > has been done using virtme,
> > > so my world-view (and dev-hack-test env) has been smaller, simpler
> > > maybe its been fatally simplistic.
> > >
> > > ive just rebuilt v6.0 (before the trouble)
> > > and run it thru my virtual home box,
> > > I didnt see any unfamiliar drm-debug output
> > > that I might have inadvertently altered somehow
> > >
> > > I have some real HW I can put a reference kernel on,0
> > > to look for the missing output, but its all gonna take some time,
> > > esp to tighten up my dev-test-env
> > >
> > > in the meantime, there is:
> > >
> > > config DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
> > > bool "use dynamic debug to implement drm.debug"
> > > default y
> > > depends on DRM
> > > depends on DYNAMIC_DEBUG || DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE
> > > depends on JUMP_LABEL
> > > help
> > >Use dynamic-debug to avoid drm_debug_enabled() runtime overheads.
> > >Due to callsite counts in DRM drivers (~4k in amdgpu) and 56
> > >bytes per callsite, the .data costs can be substantial, and
> > >are therefore configurable.
> > >
> > > Does changing the default fix things for i915 dmesg ?
> > I think we want to mark it BROKEN in addition to make sure no one
> > >>> Ok, I get the distinction now.
> > >>> youre spelling that
> > >>>depends on BROKEN
> > >>>
> > >>> I have a notional explanation, and a conflating commit:
> > >>>
> > >>> can you eliminate
> > >>> git log -p ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
> > >>>
> > >>> as the cause
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 08:20:54PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
>
>
> On 10/31/22 6:11 PM, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:07 AM Ville Syrjälä
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 08:42:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ville Syrjälä
> >>> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:55:39PM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:59 AM Ville Syrjälä
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron wrote:
>
>
> On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
>
> heres follow-up to V6:
> rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits
> (thanks)
> rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
>
> It excludes:
> nouveau parts (immature)
> tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
>
> IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his
> Reviewed-by.
>
> If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest
> separately.
> >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug
> >> prints are
> >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in
> >> /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the
> > same,
> > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've
> > got a
> > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
> > because of this.
> >
> > BR,
> > Jani.
> >
> >
> That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this
> change some
> of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to manually
> enable
> them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jason
> >>>
> >>> Im just seeing this now.
> >>> Any new details ?
> >> No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
> >> about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
> >> we need this working before 6.1 is released.
> >>
> >> Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
> >> (at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
> >> can't think what would make i915 any more special.
> >>
> > So, I should note -
> > 99% of my time & energy on this dyndbg + drm patchset
> > has been done using virtme,
> > so my world-view (and dev-hack-test env) has been smaller, simpler
> > maybe its been fatally simplistic.
> >
> > ive just rebuilt v6.0 (before the trouble)
> > and run it thru my virtual home box,
> > I didnt see any unfamiliar drm-debug output
> > that I might have inadvertently altered somehow
> >
> > I have some real HW I can put a reference kernel on,0
> > to look for the missing output, but its all gonna take some time,
> > esp to tighten up my dev-test-env
> >
> > in the meantime, there is:
> >
> > config DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
> > bool "use dynamic debug to implement drm.debug"
> > default y
> > depends on DRM
> > depends on DYNAMIC_DEBUG || DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE
> > depends on JUMP_LABEL
> > help
> >Use dynamic-debug to avoid drm_debug_enabled() runtime overheads.
> >Due to callsite counts in DRM drivers (~4k in amdgpu) and 56
> >bytes per callsite, the .data costs can be substantial, and
> >are therefore configurable.
> >
> > Does changing the default fix things for i915 dmesg ?
> I think we want to mark it BROKEN in addition to make sure no one
> >>> Ok, I get the distinction now.
> >>> youre spelling that
> >>>depends on BROKEN
> >>>
> >>> I have a notional explanation, and a conflating commit:
> >>>
> >>> can you eliminate
> >>> git log -p ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
> >>>
> >>> as the cause ?
> >> Reverting that doesn't help.
> >>
> > thanks for eliminating it.
> >
> >>> I do need to clarify, I dont know exactly what debug/logging output
> >>> is missing such that CI is failing
> >> CI isn't failing. But any logs it produces are 100% useless,
> >> as are any user reported logs.
> >>
> >> The debugs
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On 10/31/22 6:11 PM, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:07 AM Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 08:42:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:55:39PM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:59 AM Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron wrote:
On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
heres follow-up to V6:
rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits (thanks)
rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
It excludes:
nouveau parts (immature)
tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his Reviewed-by.
If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest separately.
All now queued up, thanks.
This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug prints are
produced. If I then go fiddle around in /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
the debug prints start to suddenly work.
Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the same,
which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've got a
CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
because of this.
BR,
Jani.
That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this change some
of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to manually enable
them?
Thanks,
-Jason
Im just seeing this now.
Any new details ?
No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
we need this working before 6.1 is released.
Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
(at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
can't think what would make i915 any more special.
So, I should note -
99% of my time & energy on this dyndbg + drm patchset
has been done using virtme,
so my world-view (and dev-hack-test env) has been smaller, simpler
maybe its been fatally simplistic.
ive just rebuilt v6.0 (before the trouble)
and run it thru my virtual home box,
I didnt see any unfamiliar drm-debug output
that I might have inadvertently altered somehow
I have some real HW I can put a reference kernel on,0
to look for the missing output, but its all gonna take some time,
esp to tighten up my dev-test-env
in the meantime, there is:
config DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
bool "use dynamic debug to implement drm.debug"
default y
depends on DRM
depends on DYNAMIC_DEBUG || DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE
depends on JUMP_LABEL
help
Use dynamic-debug to avoid drm_debug_enabled() runtime overheads.
Due to callsite counts in DRM drivers (~4k in amdgpu) and 56
bytes per callsite, the .data costs can be substantial, and
are therefore configurable.
Does changing the default fix things for i915 dmesg ?
I think we want to mark it BROKEN in addition to make sure no one
Ok, I get the distinction now.
youre spelling that
depends on BROKEN
I have a notional explanation, and a conflating commit:
can you eliminate
git log -p ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
as the cause ?
Reverting that doesn't help.
thanks for eliminating it.
I do need to clarify, I dont know exactly what debug/logging output
is missing such that CI is failing
CI isn't failing. But any logs it produces are 100% useless,
as are any user reported logs.
The debugs that are missing are anything not coming directly
from drm.ko.
The stuff that I see being printed by i915.ko are drm_info()
and the drm_printer stuff from i915_welcome_messages(). That
also implies that drm_debug_enabled(DRM_UT_DRIVER) does at
least still work correctly.
I suspect that the problem is just that the debug calls
aren't getting patched in when a module loads. And fiddling
with the modparam after the fact does trigger that somehow.
ok, heres the 'tape' of a virtme boot,
then modprobe going wrong.
[1.785873] dyndbg: 2 debug prints in module intel_rapl_msr
[2.040598] virtme-init: udev is done
virtme-init: console is ttyS0
load drm driver
bash-5.2# modprobe i915
drm module is loaded 1st
[6.549451] dyndbg: add-module: drm.302 sites
[6.549991] dyndbg: class[0]: module:drm base:0 len:10 ty:0
[6.550647] dyndbg: 0: 0 DRM_UT_CORE
[6.551097] dyndbg: 1: 1 DRM_UT_DRIVER
[6.551531] dyndbg: 2: 2 DRM_UT_KMS
[6.551931] dyndbg: 3: 3 DRM_UT_PRIME
[6.552402] dyndbg: 4: 4 DRM_UT_ATOMIC
[6.552799] dyndbg: 5: 5 DRM_UT_VBL
[6.553270] dyndbg: 6: 6 DRM_UT_STATE
[6.553634] dyndbg: 7: 7 DRM_UT_LEASE
[6.554043] dyndbg: 8: 8
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 7:07 AM Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 08:42:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ville Syrjälä
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:55:39PM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:59 AM Ville Syrjälä
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > > > > > > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > heres follow-up to V6:
> > > > > > > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied
> > > > > > > bits (thanks)
> > > > > > > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It excludes:
> > > > > > > nouveau parts (immature)
> > > > > > > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> > > > > > > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way
> > > > > > > unready)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest
> > > > > > > separately.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug
> > > > > > > >> prints are
> > > > > > > >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in
> > > > > > > >> /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> > > > > > > >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay
> > > > > > > > the same,
> > > > > > > > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books.
> > > > > > > > We've got a
> > > > > > > > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right
> > > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > because of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > > > Jani.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this
> > > > > > > change some
> > > > > > > of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to
> > > > > > > manually enable
> > > > > > > them?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Jason
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Im just seeing this now.
> > > > > > Any new details ?
> > > > >
> > > > > No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
> > > > > about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
> > > > > we need this working before 6.1 is released.
> > > > >
> > > > > Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
> > > > > (at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
> > > > > can't think what would make i915 any more special.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, I should note -
> > > > 99% of my time & energy on this dyndbg + drm patchset
> > > > has been done using virtme,
> > > > so my world-view (and dev-hack-test env) has been smaller, simpler
> > > > maybe its been fatally simplistic.
> > > >
> > > > ive just rebuilt v6.0 (before the trouble)
> > > > and run it thru my virtual home box,
> > > > I didnt see any unfamiliar drm-debug output
> > > > that I might have inadvertently altered somehow
> > > >
> > > > I have some real HW I can put a reference kernel on,0
> > > > to look for the missing output, but its all gonna take some time,
> > > > esp to tighten up my dev-test-env
> > > >
> > > > in the meantime, there is:
> > > >
> > > > config DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
> > > > bool "use dynamic debug to implement drm.debug"
> > > > default y
> > > > depends on DRM
> > > > depends on DYNAMIC_DEBUG || DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE
> > > > depends on JUMP_LABEL
> > > > help
> > > > Use dynamic-debug to avoid drm_debug_enabled() runtime overheads.
> > > > Due to callsite counts in DRM drivers (~4k in amdgpu) and 56
> > > > bytes per callsite, the .data costs can be substantial, and
> > > > are therefore configurable.
> > > >
> > > > Does changing the default fix things for i915 dmesg ?
> > >
> > > I think we want to mark it BROKEN in addition to make sure no one
> >
> > Ok, I get the distinction now.
> > youre spelling that
> > depends on BROKEN
> >
> > I have a notional explanation, and a conflating commit:
> >
> > can you eliminate
> > git log -p ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
> >
> > as the cause ?
>
> Reverting that doesn't help.
>
thanks for eliminating it.
> >
> > I do need to
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 08:42:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ville Syrjälä
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:55:39PM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:59 AM Ville Syrjälä
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > > > > > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > heres follow-up to V6:
> > > > > > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits
> > > > > > (thanks)
> > > > > > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It excludes:
> > > > > > nouveau parts (immature)
> > > > > > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> > > > > > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his
> > > > > > Reviewed-by.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest
> > > > > > separately.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug
> > > > > > >> prints are
> > > > > > >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in
> > > > > > >> /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> > > > > > >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the
> > > > > > > same,
> > > > > > > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books.
> > > > > > > We've got a
> > > > > > > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > because of this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > > Jani.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this
> > > > > > change some
> > > > > > of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to
> > > > > > manually enable
> > > > > > them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Jason
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Im just seeing this now.
> > > > > Any new details ?
> > > >
> > > > No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
> > > > about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
> > > > we need this working before 6.1 is released.
> > > >
> > > > Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
> > > > (at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
> > > > can't think what would make i915 any more special.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So, I should note -
> > > 99% of my time & energy on this dyndbg + drm patchset
> > > has been done using virtme,
> > > so my world-view (and dev-hack-test env) has been smaller, simpler
> > > maybe its been fatally simplistic.
> > >
> > > ive just rebuilt v6.0 (before the trouble)
> > > and run it thru my virtual home box,
> > > I didnt see any unfamiliar drm-debug output
> > > that I might have inadvertently altered somehow
> > >
> > > I have some real HW I can put a reference kernel on,0
> > > to look for the missing output, but its all gonna take some time,
> > > esp to tighten up my dev-test-env
> > >
> > > in the meantime, there is:
> > >
> > > config DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
> > > bool "use dynamic debug to implement drm.debug"
> > > default y
> > > depends on DRM
> > > depends on DYNAMIC_DEBUG || DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE
> > > depends on JUMP_LABEL
> > > help
> > > Use dynamic-debug to avoid drm_debug_enabled() runtime overheads.
> > > Due to callsite counts in DRM drivers (~4k in amdgpu) and 56
> > > bytes per callsite, the .data costs can be substantial, and
> > > are therefore configurable.
> > >
> > > Does changing the default fix things for i915 dmesg ?
> >
> > I think we want to mark it BROKEN in addition to make sure no one
>
> Ok, I get the distinction now.
> youre spelling that
> depends on BROKEN
>
> I have a notional explanation, and a conflating commit:
>
> can you eliminate
> git log -p ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
>
> as the cause ?
Reverting that doesn't help.
>
>
>
> commit ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
> Author: Jim Cromie
> Date: Sun Sep 11 23:28:51 2022 -0600
>
> drm_print: prefer bare printk KERN_DEBUG on generic fn
>
> drm_print.c calls pr_debug() just once, from __drm_printfn_debug(),
> which is a generic/service fn. The callsite is compile-time enabled
> by DEBUG in both DYNAMIC_DEBUG=y/n
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 2:10 PM Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:55:39PM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:59 AM Ville Syrjälä
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > > > > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
> > > > >
> > > > > heres follow-up to V6:
> > > > > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits
> > > > > (thanks)
> > > > > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
> > > > >
> > > > > It excludes:
> > > > > nouveau parts (immature)
> > > > > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> > > > > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
> > > > >
> > > > > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his
> > > > > Reviewed-by.
> > > > >
> > > > > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest
> > > > > separately.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug
> > > > > >> prints are
> > > > > >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in
> > > > > >> /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> > > > > >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the
> > > > > > same,
> > > > > > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've
> > > > > > got a
> > > > > > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
> > > > > > because of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > Jani.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this change
> > > > > some
> > > > > of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to manually
> > > > > enable
> > > > > them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > -Jason
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Im just seeing this now.
> > > > Any new details ?
> > >
> > > No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
> > > about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
> > > we need this working before 6.1 is released.
> > >
> > > Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
> > > (at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
> > > can't think what would make i915 any more special.
> > >
> >
> > So, I should note -
> > 99% of my time & energy on this dyndbg + drm patchset
> > has been done using virtme,
> > so my world-view (and dev-hack-test env) has been smaller, simpler
> > maybe its been fatally simplistic.
> >
> > ive just rebuilt v6.0 (before the trouble)
> > and run it thru my virtual home box,
> > I didnt see any unfamiliar drm-debug output
> > that I might have inadvertently altered somehow
> >
> > I have some real HW I can put a reference kernel on,0
> > to look for the missing output, but its all gonna take some time,
> > esp to tighten up my dev-test-env
> >
> > in the meantime, there is:
> >
> > config DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
> > bool "use dynamic debug to implement drm.debug"
> > default y
> > depends on DRM
> > depends on DYNAMIC_DEBUG || DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE
> > depends on JUMP_LABEL
> > help
> > Use dynamic-debug to avoid drm_debug_enabled() runtime overheads.
> > Due to callsite counts in DRM drivers (~4k in amdgpu) and 56
> > bytes per callsite, the .data costs can be substantial, and
> > are therefore configurable.
> >
> > Does changing the default fix things for i915 dmesg ?
>
> I think we want to mark it BROKEN in addition to make sure no one
Ok, I get the distinction now.
youre spelling that
depends on BROKEN
I have a notional explanation, and a conflating commit:
can you eliminate
git log -p ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
as the cause ?
commit ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
Author: Jim Cromie
Date: Sun Sep 11 23:28:51 2022 -0600
drm_print: prefer bare printk KERN_DEBUG on generic fn
drm_print.c calls pr_debug() just once, from __drm_printfn_debug(),
which is a generic/service fn. The callsite is compile-time enabled
by DEBUG in both DYNAMIC_DEBUG=y/n builds.
For dyndbg builds, reverting this callsite back to bare printk is
correcting a few anti-features:
1- callsite is generic, serves multiple drm users.
it is soft-wired on currently by #define DEBUG
could accidentally: #> echo -p > /proc/dynamic_debug/control
2- optional "decorations" by dyndbg are unhelpful/misleading here,
they describe
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:55:39PM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:59 AM Ville Syrjälä
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > > > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
> > > >
> > > > heres follow-up to V6:
> > > > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits
> > > > (thanks)
> > > > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
> > > >
> > > > It excludes:
> > > > nouveau parts (immature)
> > > > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> > > > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
> > > >
> > > > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his
> > > > Reviewed-by.
> > > >
> > > > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest
> > > > separately.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug prints
> > > > >> are
> > > > >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in
> > > > >> /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> > > > >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the same,
> > > > > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've
> > > > > got a
> > > > > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
> > > > > because of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > BR,
> > > > > Jani.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this change
> > > > some
> > > > of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to manually
> > > > enable
> > > > them?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > -Jason
> > >
> > >
> > > Im just seeing this now.
> > > Any new details ?
> >
> > No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
> > about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
> > we need this working before 6.1 is released.
> >
> > Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
> > (at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
> > can't think what would make i915 any more special.
> >
>
> So, I should note -
> 99% of my time & energy on this dyndbg + drm patchset
> has been done using virtme,
> so my world-view (and dev-hack-test env) has been smaller, simpler
> maybe its been fatally simplistic.
>
> ive just rebuilt v6.0 (before the trouble)
> and run it thru my virtual home box,
> I didnt see any unfamiliar drm-debug output
> that I might have inadvertently altered somehow
>
> I have some real HW I can put a reference kernel on,0
> to look for the missing output, but its all gonna take some time,
> esp to tighten up my dev-test-env
>
> in the meantime, there is:
>
> config DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
> bool "use dynamic debug to implement drm.debug"
> default y
> depends on DRM
> depends on DYNAMIC_DEBUG || DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE
> depends on JUMP_LABEL
> help
> Use dynamic-debug to avoid drm_debug_enabled() runtime overheads.
> Due to callsite counts in DRM drivers (~4k in amdgpu) and 56
> bytes per callsite, the .data costs can be substantial, and
> are therefore configurable.
>
> Does changing the default fix things for i915 dmesg ?
I think we want to mark it BROKEN in addition to make sure no one
enables it by accident. We already got one bug report where I had to
ask the reporter to rebuild their kernel since this had gotten
enabled and we didn't get any debugs from the driver probe.
> or is the problem deeper ?
>
> theres also this Makefile addition, which I might have oversimplified
>
> CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG) += -DDYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:59 AM Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
> > >
> > > heres follow-up to V6:
> > > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits
> > > (thanks)
> > > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
> > >
> > > It excludes:
> > > nouveau parts (immature)
> > > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> > > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
> > >
> > > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his
> > > Reviewed-by.
> > >
> > > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest
> > > separately.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> > > >>
> > > >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug prints
> > > >> are
> > > >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in
> > > >> /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> > > >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> > > >
> > > > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the same,
> > > > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've got a
> > > > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
> > > > because of this.
> > > >
> > > > BR,
> > > > Jani.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this change some
> > > of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to manually
> > > enable
> > > them?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -Jason
> >
> >
> > Im just seeing this now.
> > Any new details ?
>
> No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
> about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
> we need this working before 6.1 is released.
>
> Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
> (at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
> can't think what would make i915 any more special.
>
So, I should note -
99% of my time & energy on this dyndbg + drm patchset
has been done using virtme,
so my world-view (and dev-hack-test env) has been smaller, simpler
maybe its been fatally simplistic.
ive just rebuilt v6.0 (before the trouble)
and run it thru my virtual home box,
I didnt see any unfamiliar drm-debug output
that I might have inadvertently altered somehow
I have some real HW I can put a reference kernel on,0
to look for the missing output, but its all gonna take some time,
esp to tighten up my dev-test-env
in the meantime, there is:
config DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG
bool "use dynamic debug to implement drm.debug"
default y
depends on DRM
depends on DYNAMIC_DEBUG || DYNAMIC_DEBUG_CORE
depends on JUMP_LABEL
help
Use dynamic-debug to avoid drm_debug_enabled() runtime overheads.
Due to callsite counts in DRM drivers (~4k in amdgpu) and 56
bytes per callsite, the .data costs can be substantial, and
are therefore configurable.
Does changing the default fix things for i915 dmesg ?
or is the problem deeper ?
theres also this Makefile addition, which I might have oversimplified
CFLAGS-$(CONFIG_DRM_USE_DYNAMIC_DEBUG) += -DDYNAMIC_DEBUG_MODULE
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 09:37:52AM -0600, jim.cro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
> >
> > heres follow-up to V6:
> > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits (thanks)
> > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
> >
> > It excludes:
> > nouveau parts (immature)
> > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
> >
> > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his Reviewed-by.
> >
> > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest separately.
> > >>>
> > >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> > >>
> > >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug prints are
> > >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> > >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> > >
> > > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the same,
> > > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've got a
> > > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
> > > because of this.
> > >
> > > BR,
> > > Jani.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this change some
> > of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to manually enable
> > them?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -Jason
>
>
> Im just seeing this now.
> Any new details ?
No. We just disabled it as BROKEN for now. I was just today thinking
about sending that patch out if no solutin is forthcoming soon since
we need this working before 6.1 is released.
Pretty sure you should see the problem immediately with any driver
(at least if it's built as a module, didn't try builtin). Or at least
can't think what would make i915 any more special.
>
> I didnt knowingly change something, but since its apparently happening,
> heres a 1st WAG at a possible cause
>
> commit ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
> Author: Jim Cromie
> Date: Sun Sep 11 23:28:51 2022 -0600
>
> drm_print: prefer bare printk KERN_DEBUG on generic fn
>
> drm_print.c calls pr_debug() just once, from __drm_printfn_debug(),
> which is a generic/service fn. The callsite is compile-time enabled
> by DEBUG in both DYNAMIC_DEBUG=y/n builds.
>
> For dyndbg builds, reverting this callsite back to bare printk is
> correcting a few anti-features:
>
> 1- callsite is generic, serves multiple drm users.
>it is soft-wired on currently by #define DEBUG
>could accidentally: #> echo -p > /proc/dynamic_debug/control
>
> 2- optional "decorations" by dyndbg are unhelpful/misleading here,
>they describe only the generic site, not end users
>
> IOW, 1,2 are unhelpful at best, and possibly confusing.
>
> reverting yields a nominal data and text shrink:
>
>textdata bss dec hex filename
> 462583 36604 54592 553779 87333 /kernel/drivers/gpu/drm/drm.ko
> 462515 36532 54592 553639 872a7
> -dirty/kernel/drivers/gpu/drm/drm.ko
>
> Signed-off-by: Jim Cromie
> Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220912052852.1123868-9-jim.cro...@gmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 9:08 AM Jason Baron wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
>
> heres follow-up to V6:
> rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits (thanks)
> rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
>
> It excludes:
> nouveau parts (immature)
> tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
>
> IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his Reviewed-by.
>
> If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest separately.
> >>>
> >>> All now queued up, thanks.
> >>
> >> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug prints are
> >> produced. If I then go fiddle around in /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> >> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
> >
> > Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the same,
> > which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've got a
> > CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
> > because of this.
> >
> > BR,
> > Jani.
> >
> >
>
> That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this change some
> of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to manually enable
> them?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jason
Im just seeing this now.
Any new details ?
I didnt knowingly change something, but since its apparently happening,
heres a 1st WAG at a possible cause
commit ccc2b496324c13e917ef05f563626f4e7826bef1
Author: Jim Cromie
Date: Sun Sep 11 23:28:51 2022 -0600
drm_print: prefer bare printk KERN_DEBUG on generic fn
drm_print.c calls pr_debug() just once, from __drm_printfn_debug(),
which is a generic/service fn. The callsite is compile-time enabled
by DEBUG in both DYNAMIC_DEBUG=y/n builds.
For dyndbg builds, reverting this callsite back to bare printk is
correcting a few anti-features:
1- callsite is generic, serves multiple drm users.
it is soft-wired on currently by #define DEBUG
could accidentally: #> echo -p > /proc/dynamic_debug/control
2- optional "decorations" by dyndbg are unhelpful/misleading here,
they describe only the generic site, not end users
IOW, 1,2 are unhelpful at best, and possibly confusing.
reverting yields a nominal data and text shrink:
textdata bss dec hex filename
462583 36604 54592 553779 87333 /kernel/drivers/gpu/drm/drm.ko
462515 36532 54592 553639 872a7 -dirty/kernel/drivers/gpu/drm/drm.ko
Signed-off-by: Jim Cromie
Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220912052852.1123868-9-jim.cro...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On 10/21/22 05:18, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
heres follow-up to V6:
rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits (thanks)
rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
It excludes:
nouveau parts (immature)
tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his Reviewed-by.
If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest separately.
>>>
>>> All now queued up, thanks.
>>
>> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug prints are
>> produced. If I then go fiddle around in /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
>> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
>
> Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the same,
> which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've got a
> CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
> because of this.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
That doesn't sound good - so you are saying that prior to this change some
of the drm debugs were default enabled. But now you have to manually enable
them?
Thanks,
-Jason
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Thu, 20 Oct 2022, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
>> > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
>> >
>> > heres follow-up to V6:
>> > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits (thanks)
>> > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
>> >
>> > It excludes:
>> > nouveau parts (immature)
>> > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
>> > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
>> >
>> > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his Reviewed-by.
>> >
>> > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest separately.
>>
>> All now queued up, thanks.
>
> This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug prints are
> produced. If I then go fiddle around in /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
> the debug prints start to suddenly work.
Wait what? I always assumed the default behaviour would stay the same,
which is usually how we roll. It's a regression in my books. We've got a
CI farm that's not very helpful in terms of dmesg logging right now
because of this.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:02:34PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> > hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
> >
> > heres follow-up to V6:
> > rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits (thanks)
> > rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
> >
> > It excludes:
> > nouveau parts (immature)
> > tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> > split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
> >
> > IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his Reviewed-by.
> >
> > If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest separately.
>
> All now queued up, thanks.
This stuff broke i915 debugs. When I first load i915 no debug prints are
produced. If I then go fiddle around in /sys/module/drm/parameters/debug
the debug prints start to suddenly work.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
Re: [PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 11:28:43PM -0600, Jim Cromie wrote:
> hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
>
> heres follow-up to V6:
> rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits (thanks)
> rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
>
> It excludes:
> nouveau parts (immature)
> tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
> split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
>
> IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his Reviewed-by.
>
> If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest separately.
All now queued up, thanks.
greg k-h
[PATCH v7 0/9] dyndbg: drm.debug adaptation
hi Greg, Dan, Jason, DRM-folk,
heres follow-up to V6:
rebased on driver-core/driver-core-next for -v6 applied bits (thanks)
rework drm_debug_enabled{_raw,_instrumented,} per Dan.
It excludes:
nouveau parts (immature)
tracefs parts (I missed --to=Steve on v6)
split _ddebug_site and de-duplicate experiment (way unready)
IOW, its the remaining commits of V6 on which Dan gave his Reviewed-by.
If these are good to apply, I'll rebase and repost the rest separately.
These are also available at:
https://github.com/jimc/linux/releases/tag/dyndbg%2Fdd-drm-class-911
RFC:
DECLARE_DYNDBG_CLASSMAP's interface can be improved: class-names are
currently strings, like "DRM_UT_CORE", which must have corresponding
ENUM symbols defined. It would be better to just pass DRM_UT_CORE,
etc, and stringify the va-args inside the macro while initializing
classnames member. But how ?
Jim Cromie (9):
drm_print: condense enum drm_debug_category
drm: POC drm on dyndbg - use in core, 2 helpers, 3 drivers.
drm_print: interpose drm_*dbg with forwarding macros
drm_print: wrap drm_*_dbg in dyndbg descriptor factory macro
drm-print.h: include dyndbg header
drm-print: add drm_dbg_driver to improve namespace symmetry
drm_print: optimize drm_debug_enabled for jump-label
drm_print: prefer bare printk KERN_DEBUG on generic fn
drm_print: add _ddebug descriptor to drm_*dbg prototypes
drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig | 12
drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile| 2 +
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c | 14 +
drivers/gpu/drm/display/drm_dp_helper.c | 13 +
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_crtc_helper.c | 13 +
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_print.c | 48 +++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_params.c | 12
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_drm.c | 13 +
include/drm/drm_print.h | 78 +++--
9 files changed, 174 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
--
2.37.3
