Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-06-14 20:53:26) > On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 08:11, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > @@ -67,10 +61,17 @@ i915_gem_object_set_to_wc_domain(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, bool write) > > * continue to assume that the obj remained out of the CPU cached > > * domain. > > */ > > - ret = i915_gem_object_pin_pages(obj); > > + ret = i915_gem_object_pin_pages_async(obj); > > if (ret) > > return ret; > > > > + ret = i915_gem_object_wait(obj, > > + I915_WAIT_INTERRUPTIBLE | > > + (write ? I915_WAIT_ALL : 0), > > + MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT); > > + if (ret) > > + goto out_unpin; > > + > > Do we somehow propagate a potential error from a worker to the > object_wait()? Or should we be looking at obj->mm.pages here? Yeah, I've propagated such errors elsewhere (principally along the fences). What you are suggesting is tantamount to making i915_gem_object_wait() report an error, and I have bad memories from all the unhandled -EIO in the past. However, that feels the natural thing to do, so lets give it a whirl. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
