On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:25:18PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:46:35PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 01:28:31PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > Okay risking more embarrassing misses, but is this not a false > > > negative? Userptr created from an equal or smaller than the GTT > > > mapping would not trigger this return false for some reason? > > > > I was thinking about the case where the vma is far to the right of addr, > > where it started past end. However, that is now protected by checking > > vm_start > addr for the first vma. I didn't want a false positive, but > > yeah this should now be a false negative for a single GTT vma spanning > > the userptr. Weird that gem_userptr_blits didn't catch that case :| > > Ah, added the boundary tests to gem_userptr_blits/invalid-gtt-mapping > and by printk confirmed hitting the bug you pointed out. However, the > igt still passes because we defer to the worker and that generates the > EFAULT. Catching it as a real error is proving difficult, needs Michal's > machinery on top of the overlap of neighbouring vma. Done. I can provoke the deadlock by adding a few more boundary cases to Michal's tests. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
