On 3/21/19 1:08 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Sujaritha (2019-03-21 19:41:17)
On 3/21/19 12:37 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Patchwork (2019-03-21 19:26:27)
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915/guc: GuC suspend path cleanup
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/58370/
State : failure
== Summary ==
CI Bug Log - changes from CI_DRM_5789 -> Patchwork_12553
====================================================
Summary
-------
**FAILURE**
Serious unknown changes coming with Patchwork_12553 absolutely need to be
verified manually.
If you think the reported changes have nothing to do with the changes
introduced in Patchwork_12553, please notify your bug team to allow them
to document this new failure mode, which will reduce false positives in CI.
External URL: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/58370/revisions/1/mbox/
Possible new issues
-------------------
Here are the unknown changes that may have been introduced in Patchwork_12553:
### IGT changes ###
#### Possible regressions ####
* igt@gem_exec_suspend@basic-s3:
- fi-apl-guc: PASS -> DMESG-WARN
That says we turned the guc off before completing the idle sequence, so
the intel_uc_suspend() has to be after the flush_workqueues.
-Chris
But shouldn't this be taken care of by the switch_to_kernel_context_sync ?
Hmm, no, we can't flush the retire worker there (because of
struct_mutex). But it should be taken care! Something to work on :)
And would be better have uc_suspend after drain_delayed_work instead of
just after flush_workqueue ?
Basically right at the end; you don't need struct_mutex right? And the
assert that the gt is !awake fits in with the intent to switch guc off.
-Chris
Yes at the end, before the GEM_BUG_ON. The struct_mutex is not required.
-Sujaritha
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
