Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-01-24 12:50:30) > Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-01-24 12:06:01) > > Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > - /* > > > - * We want to perform per-engine reset from atomic context (e.g. > > > - * softirq), which imposes the constraint that we cannot sleep. > > > - * However, experience suggests that spending a bit of time waiting > > > - * for a reset helps in various cases, so for a full-device reset > > > - * we apply the opposite rule and wait if we want to. As we should > > > - * always follow up a failed per-engine reset with a full device reset, > > > - * being a little faster, stricter and more error prone for the > > > - * atomic case seems an acceptable compromise. > > > - * > > > - * Unfortunately this leads to a bimodal routine, when the goal was > > > - * to have a single reset function that worked for resetting any > > > - * number of engines simultaneously. > > > - */ > > > - might_sleep_if(engine_mask == ALL_ENGINES); > > > > Oh here it is. I was after this on atomic resets. > > I was saying it didn't make sense to lift the restriction until we > relied upon. Just because the code became safe doesn't mean it was then > part of the API :) Hmm, set-wedged is meant to be magical more or less now. That gives more weight to the argument of making intel_gpu_reset() magical and removing this comment earlier. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
