On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 05:03:10PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 20/07/16 16:51, Dave Gordon wrote: > >On 20/07/16 14:02, Patchwork wrote: > >>== Series Details == > >> > >>Series: series starting with [CI,1/9] drm/i915: Rename request > >>reference/unreference to get/put > >>URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/10089/ > >>State : failure > >> > >>== Summary == > >> > >>Series 10089v1 Series without cover letter > >>http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/10089/revisions/1/mbox > >> > >>Test gem_sync: > >> Subgroup basic-store-each: > >> pass -> FAIL (ro-bdw-i7-5600u) > > > >That's > >Bug 96974 - [BAT BDW] gem_sync / basic-store-each fails sporadically > > > >It claims that some interrupts were missed during the test but it > >doesn't happen on any other BDW (or any other machine at all). > >Perhaps we need another one "exactly the same" to see whether it's at > >all reproducible anywhere but that one system? > > Looks like Chris has already merged this series, just forgot to do > the commiter's reply. :) This here is potentially a race in idle_worker vs the interrupt, the other variant of the fail on this machine looks like a race in hangcheck vs enabling the interrupt. Or at least those are two races I can see that match the different fails. On the other hand, the detection may be genuine from the two different paths that do the check. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
