On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 04:33:08PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:04:39PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > The retire comes before the before the gpu_idle (we retire often as a > > part of busy, execbuffer, timers etc). The traces show exactly that. > > Yeah, the sequence I see is: > 1. retire requests leaves active objects behind with all requests retired. > 2. evict_vim > |-> 2a. gpu_idle > |-> 2b. retire_requests > |-> 2c. WARN_ON(i915_gem_evict_vm); > > I agree with you that before the call to evict_vm the lists are > inconsistent. What I don't understand how that inconsistency can get past > the 2a/2b double-punch. 2a/2b are both no-ops in this scenario. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
