On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:55:26AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:40:53AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:48:01AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 10:45:47AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > The concern is that this isn't how SIG_SEGV works, it's a signal the > > > thread who made the invalid access gets directly. You never get a SIG_SEGV > > > for bad access someone else has made. So essentially it's new ABI. > > > > SIGBUS. For which the answer is yes, you can and do get SIGBUS for > > actions taken by other processes. > > Oh right I always forget that SIGBUS aliases with SIGIO. Anyway if > userspace wants SIGIO we just need to provide it with a pollable fd and > then it can use fcntl to make that happen. That's imo a much better api > than unconditionally throwing around signals. Also we already have the > reset stats ioctl to tell userspace that its gpu context is toats. If > anyone wants that to be pollable (or even send SIGIO) I think we should > extend that, with all the usual "needs userspace&igt" stuff on top. It's not EIO handling, it is a SIGBUS in the canonical sense that the backing storage for a mmap just vanished whilst you were using it. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
