| Message ID | 20180227125230.13000-1-michal.winiarski@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 13:52:16 +0100, Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> wrote: > We plan to decouple log runtime (mapping + relay) from verbosity control. > Let's tidy the code now to reduce the churn in the following patches. > > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> > --- /snip/ > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c > @@ -657,52 +657,55 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc) > i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&guc->log.vma); > } > -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) > +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc) Can we add kernel-doc for this new function? > +{ > + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); > + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); > + > + return i915_modparams.guc_log_level; > +} > + > +#define GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) (x > 0) 1) x must be wrapped into (x) 2) GUC_LOG_ prefix is misleading, maybe LOG_LEVEL_TO_ENABLED() > +#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) ? x - 1 : > 0) 1) x must be wrapped into (x) 2) try to avoid double evaluation of x > +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val) > { > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc); > - bool enable_logging = control_val > 0; > - u32 verbosity; > int ret; > - if (!guc->log.vma) > - return -ENODEV; > + BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN != 0); > + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); > + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); > - BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN); > - if (control_val > 1 + GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) > + /* > + * GuC is recognizing log levels starting from 0 to max, we're using 0 > + * as indication that logging should be disablded. typo > + */ > + if (GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN || > + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) try to use helper variable easier read: int verbosity = LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val); if (verbosity < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN || verbosity > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) > return -EINVAL; > - /* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */ > - if (!enable_logging && !i915_modparams.guc_log_level) > - return 0; > + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > - verbosity = enable_logging ? control_val - 1 : 0; > + if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level == val) { > + ret = 0; > + goto out_unlock; > + } > - ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > - ret = guc_log_control(guc, enable_logging, verbosity); > + ret = guc_log_control(guc, GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val), > + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val)); > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > - mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > + if (ret) > + goto out_unlock; > - if (ret < 0) { > - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_logging_control action failed %d\n", ret); > - return ret; > - } > + i915_modparams.guc_log_level = val; > - if (enable_logging) { > - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 1 + verbosity; > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > - /* > - * If log was disabled at boot time, then the relay channel file > - * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would > - * not have been enabled. Try again now, just in case. > - */ > + if (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && !guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { > ret = guc_log_late_setup(guc); > - if (ret < 0) { > - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC log late setup failed %d\n", ret); why do you want to remove all these diagnostic messages? > - return ret; > - } > + if (ret) > + goto out; > /* GuC logging is currently the only user of Guc2Host interrupts */ > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > @@ -710,7 +713,7 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 > control_val) > gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv); > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > - } else { > + } else if (!GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { > /* > * Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an > * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer > @@ -718,11 +721,13 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, > u64 control_val) > * buffer state and then collect the left over logs. > */ > guc_flush_logs(guc); > - > - /* As logging is disabled, update log level to reflect that */ > - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 0; > } > + return 0; > + > +out_unlock: > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > +out: > return ret; > } > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > index dab0e949567a..141ce9ca22ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); > void intel_guc_log_init_early(struct intel_guc *guc); > int intel_guc_log_relay_create(struct intel_guc *guc); > void intel_guc_log_relay_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); > -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); > +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc); > +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); > void i915_guc_log_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > void i915_guc_log_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
On 2/27/2018 6:22 PM, Michał Winiarski wrote: > We plan to decouple log runtime (mapping + relay) from verbosity control. > Let's tidy the code now to reduce the churn in the following patches. > > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 11 ++---- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++----------------- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h | 3 +- > 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > index 33fbf3965309..58983cafaece 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > @@ -2500,13 +2500,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data, u64 *val) Should we name this i915_guc_log_level_get instead? and other related functions too? > { > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; > > - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) > + if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv)) > return -ENODEV; > > - if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma) > - return -EINVAL; > - > - *val = i915_modparams.guc_log_level; > + *val = intel_guc_log_control_get(&dev_priv->guc); > > return 0; > } > @@ -2515,10 +2512,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val) > { > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; > > - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) > + if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv)) > return -ENODEV; > > - return intel_guc_log_control(&dev_priv->guc, val); > + return intel_guc_log_control_set(&dev_priv->guc, val); > } > > DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_guc_log_control_fops, > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c > index 7b5074e2120c..22a05320817b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c > @@ -657,52 +657,55 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc) > i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&guc->log.vma); > } > > -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) > +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc) Should we be passing guc_log as parameter and implement guc_log_to_guc() function. > +{ > + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); > + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); > + > + return i915_modparams.guc_log_level; > +} > + > +#define GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) (x > 0) > +#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) ? x - 1 : 0) This is bit misleading, can we make this macro return -1 if logging is to be disabled. That way guc_log_control can be invoked with single signed 32bit parameter. > +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val) > { > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc); > - bool enable_logging = control_val > 0; > - u32 verbosity; > int ret; > > - if (!guc->log.vma) > - return -ENODEV; > + BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN != 0); > + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); > + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); > > - BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN); > - if (control_val > 1 + GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) > + /* > + * GuC is recognizing log levels starting from 0 to max, we're using 0 > + * as indication that logging should be disablded. > + */ > + if (GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN || This check seems unnecessary as we currently don't have negative output for G_L_L_T_V macro. If we add negative value there, will need to remove this check. > + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) > return -EINVAL; > > - /* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */ > - if (!enable_logging && !i915_modparams.guc_log_level) > - return 0; > + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > - verbosity = enable_logging ? control_val - 1 : 0; > + if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level == val) { > + ret = 0; > + goto out_unlock; > + } > > - ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > - ret = guc_log_control(guc, enable_logging, verbosity); > + ret = guc_log_control(guc, GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val), > + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val)); > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > - mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > + if (ret) > + goto out_unlock; > > - if (ret < 0) { > - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_logging_control action failed %d\n", ret); > - return ret; > - } > + i915_modparams.guc_log_level = val; > > - if (enable_logging) { > - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 1 + verbosity; > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > - /* > - * If log was disabled at boot time, then the relay channel file > - * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would > - * not have been enabled. Try again now, just in case. > - */ > + if (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && !guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { > ret = guc_log_late_setup(guc); > - if (ret < 0) { > - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC log late setup failed %d\n", ret); > - return ret; > - } > + if (ret) > + goto out; > > /* GuC logging is currently the only user of Guc2Host interrupts */ > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > @@ -710,7 +713,7 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) > gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv); > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > - } else { > + } else if (!GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { > /* > * Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an > * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer > @@ -718,11 +721,13 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) > * buffer state and then collect the left over logs. > */ > guc_flush_logs(guc); > - > - /* As logging is disabled, update log level to reflect that */ > - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 0; > } > > + return 0; > + > +out_unlock: > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > +out: > return ret; > } > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > index dab0e949567a..141ce9ca22ce 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); > void intel_guc_log_init_early(struct intel_guc *guc); > int intel_guc_log_relay_create(struct intel_guc *guc); > void intel_guc_log_relay_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); > -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); > +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc); > +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); > void i915_guc_log_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > void i915_guc_log_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); >
On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:39:38PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: > > > On 2/27/2018 6:22 PM, Michał Winiarski wrote: > > We plan to decouple log runtime (mapping + relay) from verbosity control. > > Let's tidy the code now to reduce the churn in the following patches. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> > > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> > > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 11 ++---- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h | 3 +- > > 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > index 33fbf3965309..58983cafaece 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c > > @@ -2500,13 +2500,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data, u64 *val) > Should we name this i915_guc_log_level_get instead? and other related > functions too? I chose symmetry here, note that the debugfs file is still named i915_guc_log_control at this point. This changes later in the series though. > > { > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; > > - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) > > + if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv)) > > return -ENODEV; > > - if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma) > > - return -EINVAL; > > - > > - *val = i915_modparams.guc_log_level; > > + *val = intel_guc_log_control_get(&dev_priv->guc); > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -2515,10 +2512,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val) > > { > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; > > - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) > > + if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv)) > > return -ENODEV; > > - return intel_guc_log_control(&dev_priv->guc, val); > > + return intel_guc_log_control_set(&dev_priv->guc, val); > > } > > DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_guc_log_control_fops, > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c > > index 7b5074e2120c..22a05320817b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c > > @@ -657,52 +657,55 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc) > > i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&guc->log.vma); > > } > > -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) > > +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc) > Should we be passing guc_log as parameter and implement guc_log_to_guc() > function. This is the top-level interface exported for GuC users. In other words - callers of this function shouldn't have to know about struct guc_log (and the fact that it's located inside struct intel_guc). > > +{ > > + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); > > + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); > > + > > + return i915_modparams.guc_log_level; > > +} > > + > > +#define GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) (x > 0) > > +#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) ? x - 1 : 0) > This is bit misleading, can we make this macro return -1 if logging is to be > disabled. That way guc_log_control can be invoked with > single signed 32bit parameter. Note that guc_log_control is the function operating directly on GuC interface. This Host2GuC action really takes 3 arguments (2 parameters here) - enable, default_logging_enable, verbosity. As a consequence, I'd like to avoid placing any logic there. The macros are taking care of translation from guc_log_level modparam to values understood by GuC (host2guc params). I agree that the naming is confusing here. I'll go with LOG_LEVEL_TO_ENABLED(x) and LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) in second spin as suggested by Michał. > > +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val) > > { > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc); > > - bool enable_logging = control_val > 0; > > - u32 verbosity; > > int ret; > > - if (!guc->log.vma) > > - return -ENODEV; > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN != 0); > > + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); > > + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); > > - BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN); > > - if (control_val > 1 + GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) > > + /* > > + * GuC is recognizing log levels starting from 0 to max, we're using 0 > > + * as indication that logging should be disablded. > > + */ > > + if (GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN || > This check seems unnecessary as we currently don't have negative output for > G_L_L_T_V macro. > If we add negative value there, will need to remove this check. Yeah, agree. That's an error on my part, I wanted to do input validation here. This should probably be something more like: if (val < VERBOSITY_TO_LOG_LEVEL(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN) || val > VERBOSITY_TO_LOG_LEVEL(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)) -Michał > > + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) > > return -EINVAL; > > - /* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */ > > - if (!enable_logging && !i915_modparams.guc_log_level) > > - return 0; > > + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > - verbosity = enable_logging ? control_val - 1 : 0; > > + if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level == val) { > > + ret = 0; > > + goto out_unlock; > > + } > > - ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > - if (ret) > > - return ret; > > intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); > > - ret = guc_log_control(guc, enable_logging, verbosity); > > + ret = guc_log_control(guc, GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val), > > + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val)); > > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > > - mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > + if (ret) > > + goto out_unlock; > > - if (ret < 0) { > > - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_logging_control action failed %d\n", ret); > > - return ret; > > - } > > + i915_modparams.guc_log_level = val; > > - if (enable_logging) { > > - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 1 + verbosity; > > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > - /* > > - * If log was disabled at boot time, then the relay channel file > > - * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would > > - * not have been enabled. Try again now, just in case. > > - */ > > + if (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && !guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { > > ret = guc_log_late_setup(guc); > > - if (ret < 0) { > > - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC log late setup failed %d\n", ret); > > - return ret; > > - } > > + if (ret) > > + goto out; > > /* GuC logging is currently the only user of Guc2Host interrupts */ > > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > @@ -710,7 +713,7 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) > > gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv); > > intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > - } else { > > + } else if (!GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { > > /* > > * Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an > > * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer > > @@ -718,11 +721,13 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) > > * buffer state and then collect the left over logs. > > */ > > guc_flush_logs(guc); > > - > > - /* As logging is disabled, update log level to reflect that */ > > - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 0; > > } > > + return 0; > > + > > +out_unlock: > > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); > > +out: > > return ret; > > } > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > > index dab0e949567a..141ce9ca22ce 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h > > @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); > > void intel_guc_log_init_early(struct intel_guc *guc); > > int intel_guc_log_relay_create(struct intel_guc *guc); > > void intel_guc_log_relay_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); > > -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); > > +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc); > > +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); > > void i915_guc_log_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > void i915_guc_log_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); > > -- > Thanks, > Sagar >
On 3/2/2018 5:22 PM, Michał Winiarski wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 04:39:38PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote: >> >> On 2/27/2018 6:22 PM, Michał Winiarski wrote: >>> We plan to decouple log runtime (mapping + relay) from verbosity control. >>> Let's tidy the code now to reduce the churn in the following patches. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> >>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >>> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> >>> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> >>> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 11 ++---- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++----------------- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h | 3 +- >>> 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >>> index 33fbf3965309..58983cafaece 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c >>> @@ -2500,13 +2500,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data, u64 *val) >> Should we name this i915_guc_log_level_get instead? and other related >> functions too? > I chose symmetry here, note that the debugfs file is still named > i915_guc_log_control at this point. This changes later in the series though. > >>> { >>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; >>> - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) >>> + if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv)) >>> return -ENODEV; >>> - if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma) >>> - return -EINVAL; >>> - >>> - *val = i915_modparams.guc_log_level; >>> + *val = intel_guc_log_control_get(&dev_priv->guc); >>> return 0; >>> } >>> @@ -2515,10 +2512,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val) >>> { >>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; >>> - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) >>> + if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv)) >>> return -ENODEV; >>> - return intel_guc_log_control(&dev_priv->guc, val); >>> + return intel_guc_log_control_set(&dev_priv->guc, val); >>> } >>> DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_guc_log_control_fops, >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c >>> index 7b5074e2120c..22a05320817b 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c >>> @@ -657,52 +657,55 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc) >>> i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&guc->log.vma); >>> } >>> -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) >>> +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc) >> Should we be passing guc_log as parameter and implement guc_log_to_guc() >> function. > This is the top-level interface exported for GuC users. In other words - callers > of this function shouldn't have to know about struct guc_log (and the fact that > it's located inside struct intel_guc). > >>> +{ >>> + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); >>> + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); >>> + >>> + return i915_modparams.guc_log_level; >>> +} >>> + >>> +#define GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) (x > 0) >>> +#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) ? x - 1 : 0) >> This is bit misleading, can we make this macro return -1 if logging is to be >> disabled. That way guc_log_control can be invoked with >> single signed 32bit parameter. > Note that guc_log_control is the function operating directly on GuC interface. > This Host2GuC action really takes 3 arguments (2 parameters here) - enable, > default_logging_enable, verbosity. > As a consequence, I'd like to avoid placing any logic there. The macros are > taking care of translation from guc_log_level modparam to values understood by > GuC (host2guc params). > > I agree that the naming is confusing here. > I'll go with LOG_LEVEL_TO_ENABLED(x) and LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) in second > spin as suggested by Michał. > >>> +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val) >>> { >>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc); >>> - bool enable_logging = control_val > 0; >>> - u32 verbosity; >>> int ret; >>> - if (!guc->log.vma) >>> - return -ENODEV; >>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN != 0); >>> + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); >>> + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); >>> - BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN); >>> - if (control_val > 1 + GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) >>> + /* >>> + * GuC is recognizing log levels starting from 0 to max, we're using 0 >>> + * as indication that logging should be disablded. >>> + */ >>> + if (GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN || >> This check seems unnecessary as we currently don't have negative output for >> G_L_L_T_V macro. >> If we add negative value there, will need to remove this check. > Yeah, agree. That's an error on my part, I wanted to do input validation here. > This should probably be something more like: > if (val < VERBOSITY_TO_LOG_LEVEL(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN) || I think we should drop the min side check because val will never be negative and if we want to keep the check then it should be #define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_DISABED 0 if (val < GUC_LOG_LEVEL_DISABLED) || Since we want to invoke guc_log_control to disable the logging. > val > VERBOSITY_TO_LOG_LEVEL(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX)) > > -Michał > >>> + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) >>> return -EINVAL; >>> - /* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */ >>> - if (!enable_logging && !i915_modparams.guc_log_level) >>> - return 0; >>> + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); >>> - verbosity = enable_logging ? control_val - 1 : 0; >>> + if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level == val) { >>> + ret = 0; >>> + goto out_unlock; >>> + } >>> - ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); >>> - if (ret) >>> - return ret; >>> intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); >>> - ret = guc_log_control(guc, enable_logging, verbosity); >>> + ret = guc_log_control(guc, GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val), >>> + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val)); >>> intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); >>> - mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); >>> + if (ret) >>> + goto out_unlock; >>> - if (ret < 0) { >>> - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_logging_control action failed %d\n", ret); >>> - return ret; >>> - } >>> + i915_modparams.guc_log_level = val; >>> - if (enable_logging) { >>> - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 1 + verbosity; >>> + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); >>> - /* >>> - * If log was disabled at boot time, then the relay channel file >>> - * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would >>> - * not have been enabled. Try again now, just in case. >>> - */ >>> + if (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && !guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { >>> ret = guc_log_late_setup(guc); >>> - if (ret < 0) { >>> - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC log late setup failed %d\n", ret); >>> - return ret; >>> - } >>> + if (ret) >>> + goto out; >>> /* GuC logging is currently the only user of Guc2Host interrupts */ >>> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); >>> @@ -710,7 +713,7 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) >>> gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv); >>> intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); >>> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); >>> - } else { >>> + } else if (!GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { >>> /* >>> * Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an >>> * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer >>> @@ -718,11 +721,13 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) >>> * buffer state and then collect the left over logs. >>> */ >>> guc_flush_logs(guc); >>> - >>> - /* As logging is disabled, update log level to reflect that */ >>> - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 0; >>> } >>> + return 0; >>> + >>> +out_unlock: >>> + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); >>> +out: >>> return ret; >>> } >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h >>> index dab0e949567a..141ce9ca22ce 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h >>> @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); >>> void intel_guc_log_init_early(struct intel_guc *guc); >>> int intel_guc_log_relay_create(struct intel_guc *guc); >>> void intel_guc_log_relay_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); >>> -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); >>> +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc); >>> +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); >>> void i915_guc_log_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); >>> void i915_guc_log_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); >> -- >> Thanks, >> Sagar >>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c index 33fbf3965309..58983cafaece 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c @@ -2500,13 +2500,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data, u64 *val) { struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) + if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv)) return -ENODEV; - if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma) - return -EINVAL; - - *val = i915_modparams.guc_log_level; + *val = intel_guc_log_control_get(&dev_priv->guc); return 0; } @@ -2515,10 +2512,10 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val) { struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; - if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv)) + if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv)) return -ENODEV; - return intel_guc_log_control(&dev_priv->guc, val); + return intel_guc_log_control_set(&dev_priv->guc, val); } DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_guc_log_control_fops, diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c index 7b5074e2120c..22a05320817b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c @@ -657,52 +657,55 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc) i915_vma_unpin_and_release(&guc->log.vma); } -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc) +{ + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); + + return i915_modparams.guc_log_level; +} + +#define GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) (x > 0) +#define GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(x) (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(x) ? x - 1 : 0) +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 val) { struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc); - bool enable_logging = control_val > 0; - u32 verbosity; int ret; - if (!guc->log.vma) - return -ENODEV; + BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN != 0); + GEM_BUG_ON(!guc->log.vma); + GEM_BUG_ON(i915_modparams.guc_log_level < 0); - BUILD_BUG_ON(GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN); - if (control_val > 1 + GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) + /* + * GuC is recognizing log levels starting from 0 to max, we're using 0 + * as indication that logging should be disablded. + */ + if (GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) < GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MIN || + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val) > GUC_LOG_VERBOSITY_MAX) return -EINVAL; - /* This combination doesn't make sense & won't have any effect */ - if (!enable_logging && !i915_modparams.guc_log_level) - return 0; + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); - verbosity = enable_logging ? control_val - 1 : 0; + if (i915_modparams.guc_log_level == val) { + ret = 0; + goto out_unlock; + } - ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); - if (ret) - return ret; intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv); - ret = guc_log_control(guc, enable_logging, verbosity); + ret = guc_log_control(guc, GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val), + GUC_LOG_LEVEL_TO_VERBOSITY(val)); intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); - mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); + if (ret) + goto out_unlock; - if (ret < 0) { - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("guc_logging_control action failed %d\n", ret); - return ret; - } + i915_modparams.guc_log_level = val; - if (enable_logging) { - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 1 + verbosity; + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); - /* - * If log was disabled at boot time, then the relay channel file - * wouldn't have been created by now and interrupts also would - * not have been enabled. Try again now, just in case. - */ + if (GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && !guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { ret = guc_log_late_setup(guc); - if (ret < 0) { - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("GuC log late setup failed %d\n", ret); - return ret; - } + if (ret) + goto out; /* GuC logging is currently the only user of Guc2Host interrupts */ mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); @@ -710,7 +713,7 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv); intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv); mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); - } else { + } else if (!GUC_LOG_IS_ENABLED(val) && guc_log_has_runtime(guc)) { /* * Once logging is disabled, GuC won't generate logs & send an * interrupt. But there could be some data in the log buffer @@ -718,11 +721,13 @@ int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val) * buffer state and then collect the left over logs. */ guc_flush_logs(guc); - - /* As logging is disabled, update log level to reflect that */ - i915_modparams.guc_log_level = 0; } + return 0; + +out_unlock: + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex); +out: return ret; } diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h index dab0e949567a..141ce9ca22ce 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ void intel_guc_log_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); void intel_guc_log_init_early(struct intel_guc *guc); int intel_guc_log_relay_create(struct intel_guc *guc); void intel_guc_log_relay_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc); -int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); +int intel_guc_log_control_get(struct intel_guc *guc); +int intel_guc_log_control_set(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control_val); void i915_guc_log_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv); void i915_guc_log_unregister(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
We plan to decouple log runtime (mapping + relay) from verbosity control. Let's tidy the code now to reduce the churn in the following patches. Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@intel.com> Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 11 ++---- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++----------------- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_log.h | 3 +- 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)