On 23/06/2015 17:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:58:42PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
On ti, 2015-06-23 at 16:44 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 06:18:21PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
On ti, 2015-06-23 at 16:13 +0100, Siluvery, Arun wrote:
On 23/06/2015 15:36, Imre Deak wrote:
On ti, 2015-06-23 at 15:31 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 05:26:13PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
On the GEN!=8 error path we call kmap_atomic() which returns in atomic
context and then lrc_destroy_wa_ctx_obj() which can be called only in
process context. Fix this by preserving the correct cleanup order on
this error path.
Also convert the WARN to DRM_ERROR the stack trace isn't really useful.
Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
index 1b50dd7..8bff1a2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
@@ -1289,10 +1289,14 @@ static int intel_init_workaround_bb(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
if (ret)
goto out;
} else {
- WARN(INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 8,
- "WA batch buffer is not initialized for Gen%d\n",
- INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen);
+ if (INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen >= 8)
+ DRM_ERROR("WA batch buffer is not initialized for Gen%d\n",
+ INTEL_INFO(ring->dev)->gen);
+
Do this test upfront, then we don't have multiple error paths.
http://paste.debian.net/255769
I didn't bother moving it, I suppose GEN9 support will be added soon
anyway and we get a bit more test coverage on GEN9 meanwhile. But if you
insist I can move it.
Hi Imre,
I sent the following patch with the changes suggested by Chris.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6661891/
Since you sent it first, my patch can be ignored if your patch is updated.
I'm fine applying your patch, but I would ask to convert the WARN to
DRM_ERROR. The stack trace doesn't add much to the error message and the
WARN is needlessly verbose now on BXT,SKL..
I presumed Arun choose WARN because we are missing w/a and wanted
someone to step forward and prove the fixes?
Imo it's unnecessarily verbose, during development when loading the
driver I know that things are mostly ok if I can't see any such
backtraces. But no strong opinion, I can also change this locally.
Error message can easily get lost and also it is not an error to not
apply these WA which is why we also continue. I thought WARN will
probably get more attention and help in adding missing WA quickly.
regards
Arun
An alternative would be to provide the stub wa_bb emission functions so
that future wa need only start with a plain copy'n'paste.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
