Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-06-21 12:46:51) > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-06-21 12:30:15) > > > > On 20/06/2017 20:55, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > + i915_gem_set_wedged(w->i915); > > > > Is it safe to do the execlist_port manipulation at this point? Couldn't > > we receive an interrupt for one request completing after we have cleared > > it from ports but before the actual reset? > > We do the port manipulation and queue cancellation inside stop_machine, > i.e. in complete isolation. That ensures we won't succumb to a race > there, we just have to be careful that the execlists cancellation works > once the machine process the interrupts afterwards. That I'm not sure > about... I got very worried, but then remembered we installed a filter on the intel_lrc_irq_handler; that is we don't call into the irq handler unless port[0] is set. So we should not get an extra call between the stop_machine() and the actual reset, but I suppose we might get a conitinuation of a tasklet? I doubt it, but adding a clear_bit to i915_gem_set_wedged would alleviate that concern. I'm happier, but randomly calling i915_gem_set_wedged() is definitely undertested (just gem_eio tries), it is and always has been meant as a last resort to keep the driver limping along. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
