On Fri, 29 May 2015, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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... >> >> Anyway, >> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Pushed to drm-intel-fixes, thanks for the patch and review. Reverted from drm-intel-fixes because I misapplied it, and applied to drm-intel-next-fixes instead. Sorry for the noise. BR, Jani. > > BR, > Jani. > > >> -Chris >> >> -- >> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre >> _______________________________________________ >> Intel-gfx mailing list >> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
