On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > On the hunt for an indefinite __wait_seqno() the most likely cause being > asked to wait upon a future seqno, we can lay a trap and see if anything > gets caught. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > index 39de523..b2effab 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > @@ -1118,6 +1118,12 @@ static int __wait_seqno(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring, u32 seqno, > bool wait_forever = true; > int ret; > > + if (WARN_ON(!i915_seqno_passed(list_entry(ring->request_list.prev, > + struct drm_i915_gem_request, > + list)->seqno, > + seqno))) > + return -EDEADLK; > + I think dumping the seqno, ring->olr, dev_priv->next_seqno and the seqno of the last request would be good to debug any such indefinite wait ... -Daniel > if (i915_seqno_passed(ring->get_seqno(ring, true), seqno)) > return 0; > > -- > 1.7.10.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
