Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-01-15 12:05:27) > Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-01-15 11:56:11) > > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Make i915_gem_set_wedged() and i915_gem_unset_wedged() behaviour more > > > consistently if called concurrently. > > > > More is needed in here. The purpose is to make them wait in turns > > on top of mutex, instead of racing on the bit? Where is > > the inconsistency tho. > > We report set-wedged multiple times on failure paths. Worse is when we > report set-wedged multiple times simultaneously. I've been contemplating just moving the reporting inside the test-bit serialisation, but I kept resisting. This issue has been nagging at me ever since using the bit for loose serialisation; you either fix a race or live to regret it. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
