On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 06:49:43PM -0300, André Almeida wrote:
> Hi Raag,
>
> On 2/28/25 11:58, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 09:13:53AM -0300, André Almeida wrote:
> > > To notify userspace about which app (if any) made the device get in a
> > > wedge state, make use of drm_wedge_app_info parameter, filling it with
> > > the app PID and name.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: André Almeida <andrealm...@igalia.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_job.c | 6 +++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
> > > index 00b9b87dafd8..e06adf6f34fd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_device.c
> > > @@ -6123,8 +6123,23 @@ int amdgpu_device_gpu_recover(struct amdgpu_device
> > > *adev,
> > > atomic_set(&adev->reset_domain->reset_res, r);
> > > - if (!r)
> > > - drm_dev_wedged_event(adev_to_drm(adev),
> > > DRM_WEDGE_RECOVERY_NONE, NULL);
> > > + if (!r) {
> > > + struct drm_wedge_app_info aux, *info = NULL;
> > > +
> > > + if (job) {
> > > + struct amdgpu_task_info *ti;
> > > +
> > > + ti = amdgpu_vm_get_task_info_pasid(adev, job->pasid);
> > > + if (ti) {
> > > + aux.pid = ti->pid;
> > > + aux.comm = ti->process_name;
> > > + info = &aux;
> > > + amdgpu_vm_put_task_info(ti);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > Is this guaranteed to be guilty app and not some scheduled worker?
>
> This is how amdgpu decides which app is the guilty one earlier in the code
> as in the print:
>
> ti = amdgpu_vm_get_task_info_pasid(ring->adev, job->pasid);
>
> "Process information: process %s pid %d thread %s pid %d\n"
>
> So I think it's consistent with what the driver thinks it's the guilty
> process.
Sure, but with something like app_info we're kind of hinting to userspace
that an application was _indeed_ involved with reset. Is that also guaranteed?
Is it possible that an application needlessly suffers from a false positive
scenario (reset due to other factors)?
Raag
