linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/amdgpu: Merge debug module parameters

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44ddad4c-6c69-48f4-bf9f-86b4c04dbfbe@igalia.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:34:15 -0300
From:   André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>
To:     Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
Cc:     pierre-eric.pelloux-prayer@....com,
        'Marek Olšák' <maraeo@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, kernel-dev@...lia.com,
        alexander.deucher@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/amdgpu: Merge debug module parameters

Em 25/08/2023 09:29, Christian König escreveu:
> Am 25.08.23 um 14:24 schrieb André Almeida:
>> Em 25/08/2023 03:56, Christian König escreveu:
>> > Am 24.08.23 um 18:25 schrieb André Almeida:
>> >> Merge all developer debug options available as separated module
>> >> parameters in one, making it obvious that are for developers.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...lia.com>
>> >> ---
>> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c  | 24 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/include/amd_shared.h |  9 +++++++++
>> >>   2 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
>> >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
>> >> index f5856b82605e..d53e4097acc0 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_drv.c
>> >> @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ int amdgpu_use_xgmi_p2p = 1;
>> >>   int amdgpu_vcnfw_log;
>> >>   int amdgpu_sg_display = -1; /* auto */
>> >>   int amdgpu_user_partt_mode = AMDGPU_AUTO_COMPUTE_PARTITION_MODE;
>> >> +uint amdgpu_debug_mask;
>> >>   static void amdgpu_drv_delayed_reset_work_handler(struct work_struct
>> >> *work);
>> >> @@ -938,6 +939,9 @@ module_param_named(user_partt_mode,
>> >> amdgpu_user_partt_mode, uint, 0444);
>> >>   module_param(enforce_isolation, bool, 0444);
>> >>   MODULE_PARM_DESC(enforce_isolation, "enforce process isolation
>> >> between graphics and compute . enforce_isolation = on");
>> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug_mask, "debug options for amdgpu, disabled by
>> >> default");
>> >> +module_param_named(debug_mask, amdgpu_debug_mask, uint, 0444);
>> >> +
>> >>   /* These devices are not supported by amdgpu.
>> >>    * They are supported by the mach64, r128, radeon drivers
>> >>    */
>> >> @@ -2871,6 +2875,24 @@ static struct pci_driver 
>> amdgpu_kms_pci_driver = {
>> >>       .dev_groups = amdgpu_sysfs_groups,
>> >>   };
>> >> +static void amdgpu_init_debug_options(void)
>> >> +{
>> >> +    if (amdgpu_debug_mask & DEBUG_VERBOSE_EVICTIONS) {
>> >> +        pr_info("debug: eviction debug messages enabled\n");
>> >> +        debug_evictions = true;
>> >> +    }
>> >> +
>> >> +    if (amdgpu_debug_mask & DEBUG_VM) {
>> >> +        pr_info("debug: VM handling debug enabled\n");
>> >> +        amdgpu_vm_debug = true;
>> >> +    }
>> >> +
>> >> +    if (amdgpu_debug_mask & DEBUG_LARGEBAR) {
>> >> +        pr_info("debug: enabled simulating large-bar capability on
>> >> non-large bar system\n");
>> >> +        debug_largebar = true;
>> >
>> > How should that work???
>>
>> Ops, I thought it was a boolean. It should be
>>
>> +        debug_largebar = 1;
> 
> 
> That's not the problem, the question is since when do we have a 
> debug_largebar option and what should that one do?
> 

It should work exactly like the other one, but instead of using 
amdgpu.large_bar=1, one would use amdgpu.debug_mask=0x4 to activate it, 
as the plan is to merge all current debug options in a single one right?

> Regards,
> Christian.