On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:47:49PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 06:32:36PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Apparently we can have requests even if though the active list is empty, > > so do the request retirement regardless of whether there's anything > > on the active list. > > > > The way it happened here is that during suspend intel_ring_idle() > > notices the olr hanging around and then proceeds to get rid of it by > > adding a request. However since there was nothing on the active lists > > i915_gem_retire_requests() didn't clean those up, and so the idle work > > never runs, and we leave the GPU "busy" during suspend resulting in a > > WARN later. > > Whlist I agree (I use list_empty(&ring->request_list);) I strongly > suspect something (i.e. execlists) isn't managing the active_list > correctly. Pretty much the only thing that can generate a request > without an object (and so avoid touching the active_list) is a CS flip, > and I doubt you are using those... Oh, I forgot to mention that this was in ringbuffer mode. I guess I should try execlist too. > > Anyway, > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
