Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-02-11 12:40:07) > > On 06/02/2019 13:03, Chris Wilson wrote: > > To determine whether an engine has 'stuck', we simply check whether or > > not is still on the same seqno for several seconds. To keep this simple > > mechanism intact over the loss of a global seqno, we can simply add a > > new global heartbeat seqno instead. As we cannot know the sequence in > > which requests will then be completed, we use a primitive random number > > generator instead (with a cycle long enough to not matter over an > > interval of a few thousand requests between hangcheck samples). > > We couldn't keep the global seqno just for hangcheck puposes? I mean as > long as it is unique, which would be guaranteed by obtaining an > increment on every submission to hw and storing it in atomic_t > i915->hangcheck_global_seqno / rq->hangcheck_global_seqno, hangcheck > does not care about the order of execution, no? s/global_seqno/hangcheck_seqno/ ? (a) the goal is to kill off global_seqno entirely so we are all sure there is no such seqno or ordering anymore (b) this is a temporary patch and we kill off hangcheck_seqno, just as soon as I can submit requests without struct_mutex -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
