On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> It might be related to a hardware bug, or the algorithm is flawed in a >>>>>> way I currently don't see. Anyway the old code we had wasn't so picky >>>>>> about such problems and the patch just tries to make the current code as >>>>>> robust as the old code was, which indeed seems to solve the problems we see. >>>>>> >>>>>> The wrap around detection still works (tested by setting the initial >>>>>> fence value to 0xfffffff0 and letting it wrap around shortly after >>>>>> start), so I think it we can safely commit this. >> >> Can we start fences off so we wrap around after say 15-20 minutes? >> that would ensure >> >> a) its tested >> b) we see failure in a lifetime. >> >> Dave. > > IIRC normal desktop with continuous activities was around 400 fence/minutes. > > Anyway it all depends on what is wrong. Do we sometime get a 0 as > fence value or do we get fence value in wrong order. Depending on that > the wrap around is a different issue see my previous mails. > > Cheers, > Jerome s/minutes/seconds Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
