On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 06:17:45PM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote: > The previous check during error capture of whether or not the current VM > should be scanned used, gen < 7. That was more or less trying to > determine if there was a full PPGTT. At the time, this was sort of what > I meant to do because I was more interested in working backwards from > hardware state. However, this is incorrect because it will not include > platforms that are greater than gen7, and not having PPGTT. Example > would be BYT which is gen7 but doesn't have PPGTT, BDW, or any platform > greater than gen7 with the PPGTT module parameter invoked. > > I am /assuming/ BYT was broken, I have not actually checked. > > While here, clean up the file a bit to avoid duplicate reads (now that > the PPGTT info is in the error state). > > I think Mika/Chris may have been looking at this too. Sure, we are looking (for identifying the guilty request/batch) by using the older, simpler mechanism of finding the first incomplete request. I think that search is now definite since we preallocate the request and no longer do request collascing if ENOMEM (i.e. there is a 1:1 relationship between seqno/batch/request). That should also apply here and be much simpler. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
