Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-07-18 13:53:16) > > On 17/07/2018 09:41, Chris Wilson wrote: > > If the driver is wedged, we skip idling the GPU. However, we may still > > have a few requests still not retired following the wedging (since they > > will be waiting for a background worker trying to acquire struct_mutex). > > As we hold the struct_mutex, always do a quick request retirement in > > order to flush the wedged path. > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=107257 > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > index 42d24410a98c..cc875e1dc7f6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > @@ -5074,6 +5074,8 @@ int i915_gem_suspend(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > > > assert_kernel_context_is_current(i915); > > } > > + i915_retire_requests(i915); /* ensure we flush after wedging */ > > + > > We cannot do this in i915_gem_set_wedged due not having the mutex? Correct. > I think it should go in an else block of the !terminally_wedged block to > signify the alternative idling method for that case. And also to make > sure the !terminally_wedged case does not start relying on this extra > retire pass. I liked the safety net and clarity of not making it conditional. > Or alternative teach i915_gem_wait_for_idle how to handle the wedged > case and only make switching to kernel context dependant on > terminally_wedged status in i915_gem_suspend? Right, it's the checks that actually worry here. Those depend on the gpu being in a fairly sane state... -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
