On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:16:03 -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 27/04/2022 16:43, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 02:15:35 -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >> On 15/04/2022 01:25, Ashutosh Dixit wrote: > >>> At present i915 does not fetch busyness information from GuC, resulting in > >>> incorrect busyness values in fdinfo. Because engine information is coupled > >>> with busyness in fdinfo, skip showing client engine information in fdinfo > >>> with GuC submission till fetching busyness is supported in the i915 GuC > >>> submission backend. > >>> > >>> v2 (Daniele): > >>> Make commit title and description more precise > >>> Add FIXME with brief description at code change > >>> s/intel_guc_submission_is_used/intel_uc_uses_guc_submission/ > >>> > >>> v3 (Daniele): > >>> Drop FIXME in comment > >>> > >>> Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/5564 > >>> Fixes: 055634e4b62f ("drm/i915: Expose client engine utilisation via > >>> fdinfo") > >>> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <[email protected] > >>> Cc: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <[email protected]> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <[email protected]> > >>> Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c | 6 +++++- > >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c > >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c > >>> index e539f6b23060..475a6f824cad 100644 > >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c > >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drm_client.c > >>> @@ -145,7 +145,11 @@ void i915_drm_client_fdinfo(struct seq_file *m, > >>> struct file *f) > >>> PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn), PCI_FUNC(pdev->devfn)); > >>> seq_printf(m, "drm-client-id:\t%u\n", client->id); > >>> - if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 8) > >>> + /* > >>> + * Temporarily skip showing client engine information with GuC > >>> submission till > >>> + * fetching engine busyness is implemented in the GuC submission backend > >>> + */ > >>> + if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 8 || > >>> intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(&i915->gt0.uc)) > >>> return; > >>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(uabi_class_names); i++) > >> > >> Thanks for fixing this while I was away. It was a simple miss, nothing > >> sinister. In terms of mention of "garbage" numbers being reported - were > >> they actually garbage or simply always zero? > > > > Ah, you are referring to what I wrote in the bug. Actually I didn't check > > the values myself but was told we were displaying "garbage" values (or at > > least I interpreted it that way, and garbage meaning not just zero). But > > looking now at IGT outputs from that time appears the values were just zero > > :/ > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_11503/re-adlp-pub1/igt@[email protected] > > > > I think we could even have left zero values as is except that we'd have to > > fix the IGT failure. > > > > Sorry for the confusion. > > Np. One could even say that there is little difference between skip and > fail, given both need manual handling in cibuglog to be marked as known > until GuC support gets added. At least if I still remember how it works > and that unexplained skips still count as fails.
True, I just updated https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/5563. I think in retrospect we should have just changed the IGT check to ignore 0 busyness values :/
