Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-05-31 15:42:03) > > > On 30/05/18 12:52, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-05-30 18:30:36) > >> > >> > >> On 30/05/18 03:33, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> After hitting the SIGINT from execbuf, wait until the next timer signal > >>> before trying again. This aligns the start of the ioctl to the timer, > >>> hopefully maximising the amount of time we have for processing before > >>> the next signal -- trying to prevent the case where we are scheduled out > >>> in the middle of processing and so hit the timer signal too early. > >>> > >>> References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106695 > >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Not sure I understand what is the sequence of events, is the problem we > >> get a signal in the middle of a 'good' execbuf and exit the while loop > >> prematurely? If so maybe we can also think of making the timer 'VIRTUAL' > >> so that it would decrement only when the process is executing. > > > > If it's VIRTUAL it'll never fire when we wait for space (as being asleep > > no user/sys time is consumed). > > > > The only way I can explain 106695 would be with some very strange > > scheduler behaviour, but even then it requires us to hit a path where we > > actually check for a pending signal -- which should only happen when we > > run out of ring space for this setup. Not even the device being wedged > > (which it wasn't) would cause the ring to drain. Possibly going over 10s > > and the cork being unplugged? Very stange. > > Just a bit concerned that we might be covering up some weird corner case > where we are sleeping where we shouldn't. The bugs are exactly the opposite, where there's a signal pending and we ignore it ;) And ignore them we do. If one day someone cares signal latency, we have a lot of explaining to do... It's just worrying because the only signal_pending() check we expect to hit is in wait-for-space (i915_request_wait to be precise); and that should be consistent between calls to execbuf. However, it's not meant to be a defining test of user behaviour, just exploiting the limitation of the implementation to report said limitation. All that we must do is to be sure that we don't over-report or else the callers will hang during their setup and fail. Under reporting is a nuisance, but not a huge issue. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
