On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 03:36:11PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > 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. Lifted blindfolds, finally found the short-circuit if (list_empty(&ring->request_list)) return; at the top of i915_gem_retire_requests_ring. Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> and for -fixes since the offending patch is in 4.0-rc1. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
