On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:47:40AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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 How does that solve hangs which aren't caused by requests? -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
