op 04-08-14 17:04, Christian K?nig schreef: > Am 04.08.2014 um 16:58 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: >> op 04-08-14 16:45, Christian K?nig schreef: >>> Am 04.08.2014 um 16:40 schrieb Maarten Lankhorst: >>>> op 04-08-14 16:37, Christian K?nig schreef: >>>>>> It'a pain to deal with gpu reset. >>>>> Yeah, well that's nothing new. >>>>> >>>>>> I've now tried other solutions but that would mean reverting to the old >>>>>> style during gpu lockup recovery, and only running the delayed work when >>>>>> !lockup. >>>>>> But this meant that the timeout was useless to add. I think the cleanest >>>>>> is keeping the v2 patch, because potentially any waiting code can be >>>>>> called during lockup recovery. >>>>> The lockup code itself should never call any waiting code and V2 doesn't >>>>> seem to handle a couple of cases correctly either. >>>>> >>>>> How about moving the fence waiting out of the reset code? >>>> What cases did I miss then? >>>> >>>> I'm curious how you want to move the fence waiting out of reset, when >>>> there are so many places that could potentially wait, like radeon_ib_get >>>> can call radeon_sa_bo_new which can do a wait, or radeon_ring_alloc that >>>> can wait on radeon_fence_wait_next, etc. >>> The IB test itself doesn't needs to be protected by the exclusive lock. >>> Only everything between radeon_save_bios_scratch_regs and >>> radeon_ring_restore. >> I'm not sure about that, what do you want to do if the ring tests fail? Do >> you have to retake the exclusive lock? > > Just set need_reset again and return -EAGAIN, that should have mostly the > same effect as what we are doing right now. Yeah, except for the locking the ttm delayed workqueue, but that bool should be easy to save/restore. I think this could work.
~Maarten
