Thanks Chris, With this series the test pin-pointed in the bug now pass. Tested-by: Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@xxxxxxxxx> > -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of Chris Wilson > Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 2:05 PM > To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Assert the context is not closed on > object-close > > During the context-close, we should be decoupling all the vma from the > object so that upon object-closing we shouldn't see any vma from the > already closed contexts. So include a check upon closing the object that the > context is still open. > > v2: Eek, the fpriv check is required for shared objects. Double eek, BAT > passed? Well, the KBL-shards results actually exposed the regression: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_5429/shards-all.html So, could you remove that comment. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c index b9e8e0d6e97b..3ed9fb0921e2 > 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > @@ -3253,11 +3253,11 @@ void i915_gem_close_object(struct > drm_gem_object *gem, struct drm_file *file) > struct i915_gem_context *ctx = lut->ctx; > struct i915_vma *vma; > > + GEM_BUG_ON(ctx->file_priv == ERR_PTR(- > EBADF)); > if (ctx->file_priv != fpriv) > continue; > > vma = radix_tree_delete(&ctx->handles_vma, > lut->handle); > - > if (!i915_vma_is_ggtt(vma)) > i915_vma_close(vma); > > -- > 2.14.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
