On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 05:09:43PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> On SNB (at least) it's dangeruopus to hang the GPU with an infinite
> batch buffer loop while RPS is disabled. The only thing that keeps
> the system going in such circumstances are the internal RPS timers,
> so we should never feed the GPU with RPS disabled unless we want to
> risk a total system hang.
>
> Previously we didn't fully disable RPS, but that changes in
> commit 2030d684f7b3 ("drm/i915/bxt: Explicitly clear the Turbo control register")
> so we probably didn't see the problem so often previously. But
> even before that we were at the mercy of the BIOS for the initial
> RPS state, so if the BIOS didn't enable RPS a GPU hang immediately
> upon boot could have been fatal.
>
> To avoid the problems let's just make the RPS enable immediate.
> This renders the delayed_resume_work useless actually. We could perhaps
> just move the ring freq table initialization to the work and do the
> other stull synchronously?
>
> Fixes: 2030d684f7b3 ("drm/i915/bxt: Explicitly clear the Turbo control register")
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This is more and RFC at this point. Perhaps we might want to keep the delayed
> work but just for the ring freq table update (which is the main reson this whole
> thing exists in the first place). Another factor is that wait_for() is not
> exactly optiomal currently, so it makes the operation slower than it needs to
> be. Would need some hard numbers to see if it's worth keeping the delayed work
> or not I suppose.
I am in favour - the entire chain should be async, not just this little
step to setup the ring freq.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
