Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Let's ensure that we cannot run indefinitely without the hangcheck
> worker being queued. We removed it from being kicked on every request
> because we were kicking it a few millions times in every hangcheck
> interval and only once is necessary! However, that leaves us with the
> issue of what if userspace never waits for a request, or runs out of
> resources, what if userspace just issues a request then spins on
> BUSY_IOCTL?
>
> Testcase: igt/gem_busy
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 7fd44980798f..adeca0ec4cfb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -3281,10 +3281,12 @@ i915_gem_retire_work_handler(struct work_struct *work)
> * We do not need to do this test under locking as in the worst-case
> * we queue the retire worker once too often.
> */
> - if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->gt.awake))
> + if (READ_ONCE(dev_priv->gt.awake)) {
> + i915_queue_hangcheck(dev_priv);
> queue_delayed_work(dev_priv->wq,
> &dev_priv->gt.retire_work,
> round_jiffies_up_relative(HZ));
> + }
> }
>
> static void
> --
> 2.8.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
