Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. That part I can agree with. Now it is all contained so if it coalesces on reports, it will be alarming :) Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
