On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:47:44AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:31:31AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 08:48:02AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Instead of querying the reset counter before every access to the ring, > > > query it the first time we touch the ring, and do a final compare when > > > submitting the request. For correctness, we need to then sanitize how > > > the reset_counter is incremented to prevent broken submission and > > > waiting across resets, in the process fixing the persistent -EIO we > > > still see today on failed waits. > > > > > > v2: Rebase > > > v3: Now with added testcase > > > v4: Rebase > > > > > > Testcase: igt/gem_eio > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Imo you really can't hide an ABI change in a refactor/optimize patch like > > this ... I really think moving check_wedge out of wait_request must be > > it's own little patch. > > Urm, that is the essential part of the patch in this series. Ok, no it's not. The key is having the request->reset_counter. I was thinking that the wakeup logic had to be the same in both - which is true, but that doesn't restrict how the wakeup is then propagated from i915_wait_request. Getting the wakeup robust though is the meat of the patch. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
