Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2018-03-27 10:22:11)
> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > When cancelling the requests and clearing out the ports following a
> > successful preemption completion, also clear the active flag. I had
> > assumed that all preemptions would be followed by an immediate dequeue
> > (preserving the active user flag), but under rare circumstances we may
> > be triggering a preemption for the second port only for it to have
> > completed before the preemotion kicks in; leaving execlists->active set
> > even though the system is now idle.
> >
> > We can clear the flag inside the common execlists_cancel_port_requests()
> > as the other users also expect the semantics of active being cleared.
> >
> > Fixes: f6322eddaff7 ("drm/i915/preemption: Allow preemption between submission ports")
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Applied to have one less random failure around preemption. Unlikely CI
will hit as we simply don't apply enough stress.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
