On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > So there's 3 competing proposals for what wait_ioctl should do wrt > -EIO: > > - return -EIO when the gpu is wedged. Not terribly useful for > userspace since it might race with a hang and then there's no > guarantee that a subsequent execbuf won't end up in an -EIO. > Terminally wedge really can only be reliably signalled at execbuf > time, and userspace needs to cope with that (or decide not to > bother). > > - EIO for any obj that suffered from a reset. This means big internal > reorginazation in the kernel since currently we track reset stats > per-ctx and not on the obj. That's also what arb robustness wants. > We could do this, but this feels like new ABI territory with the > usual userspace requirements and high hurdles. > > - No -EIO at all. Consistent with set_domain_ioctl and simplest to > implement. Which is what this patch does. > > We can always opt to change this later on if there's a real need. > > To make the test really exercise this do a full wedged gpu hang, to > make sure -EIO doesn't leak out at all. > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> I changed the test to cover both i915.reset=true and i915.reset=false possibilities and pushed. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
