On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:13:36AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:49:15AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > In case it's burried too much in the thread: > > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > > > Addadendum for the commit: > > > > "Note that this is only a problem in evict_vm where the following happens > > after a retire_request has cleaned out all requests, but not all active > > bo: > > - intel_ring_idle called from i915_gpu_idle notices that no requests are > > outstanding and immediately returns. > > - i915_gem_retire_requests_ring called from i915_gem_retire_requests also > > immediately returns when there's no request, still leaving the bo on the > > active list. > > - evict_vm hits the WARN_ON(!list_empty(&vm->active_list)) after evicting > > all active objects that there's still stuff left that shouldn't be > > there." > > > > Chris, is that an accurate enough description for Jani to add to the > > patch? > > Not quite. It affects everywhere where we rely on i915_gpu_idle() idling > the gpu (e.g. suspend), it is only the canary in i915_gem_evict_vm() > that first alerted us to the bug. Maybe we have some recent weird bugs in > suspend (or it may be too soon for those reports to start trickling in)? I take that back. The gpu is idle (no more requests). It's just the bookkeeping that's wrong (and that only affects eviction iirc). I stand corrected. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
