On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:40:02AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 09:09:03AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Akash noticed that we were recursing from the call to > > intel_runtime_pm_get() inside intel_mark_busy() when we were already > > waking the device (through another intel_runtime_pm_get()). In > > intel_mark_busy() we know the device is awake and purpose of the > > reference here is to simply keep the device awake until the GPU is idle > > again. As such we do not need the full resume, and can call the lighter > > intel_runtime_pm_get_noresume() instead. > > How does that happen? I only see a mark_busy in add_request, and we > shouldn't call that from intel_rpm_get(). Or do we? Calltrace of how this > happens would be great. We are looking at VLV workarounds for which i915_gem_init_hw() is acting very fishy. The recursion is a result of that, but that is just a demonstration that we didn't need the full pm_get() here. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
