On 2024-01-15 14:17, Christian König wrote: > Am 15.01.24 um 12:37 schrieb Joshua Ashton: >> On 1/15/24 09:40, Christian König wrote: >>> Am 13.01.24 um 15:02 schrieb Joshua Ashton: >>> >>>> Without this feedback, the application may keep pushing through the soft >>>> recoveries, continually hanging the system with jobs that timeout. >>> >>> Well, that is intentional behavior. Marek is voting for making soft recovered errors fatal as well while Michel is voting for better ignoring them. >>> >>> I'm not really sure what to do. If you guys think that soft recovered hangs should be fatal as well then we can certainly do this. A possible compromise might be making soft resets fatal if they happen repeatedly (within a certain period of time?). >> They have to be! >> >> As Marek and I have pointed out, applications that hang or fault will just hang or fault again, especially when they use things like draw indirect, buffer device address, descriptor buffers, etc. > > Ok, well then I now have two people (Marek and you) saying that soft recovery should be fatal while Michel is saying that soft recovery being non fatal improves stability for him :) That's not quite what I wrote before. I pointed out that my GNOME session has survived a soft reset without issues[0] on multiple occasions, whereas Marek's proposal at the time would have kicked me back to the login screen every time. > 0 vs effectively 0 chance of survival. [0] Except for Firefox unnecessarily falling back to software rendering, which is a side note, not the main point. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and Xwayland developer
