On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:38:59 -0700, Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net> wrote:
> If we do this we lose the possibility to kick rings, but not reset the
> GPU (not that I find that terribly useful. If we do this, it does fire a
> wq event, but I don't see a problem with that for this case.
>
> I think I would rather do this:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index 012732b..803524e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -1698,6 +1698,10 @@ void i915_hangcheck_elapsed(unsigned long data)
> if (dev_priv->hangcheck_count++ > 1) {
> DRM_ERROR("Hangcheck timer elapsed... GPU hung\n");
>
> + /* Save off error state before kicking the rings and
> + * possibly ruining the GPU state.
> + */
> + i915_handle_error(dev, true);
> if (!IS_GEN2(dev)) {
> /* Is the chip hanging on a WAIT_FOR_EVENT?
> * If so we can simply poke the RB_WAIT bit
> @@ -1717,7 +1721,6 @@ void i915_hangcheck_elapsed(unsigned long data)
> goto repeat;
> }
>
> - i915_handle_error(dev, true);
> return;
> }
> } else {
Interesting, if we simply call i915_capture_error_state() rather than move
the i195_handle_error() earlier we do in fact get the best of both worlds.
However, it doesn't address Daniel's statement that kick_rings() provoked
an unrecoverable hang and so we still need to disable that in order to
save the error-state. The origin of ring-kicking was to try and recover
from the modesetting/vsync issues, which apart from the outstanding issue
in intel_crtc_disable() are behind us. (I hope ;-) We shouldn't be relying
on i915_reset() and i915.reset=0 tends to be either deliberate or an act of
desparation so I don't see the issue in also preventing ring-kicking with
the same parameter. Is there an issue I'm overlooking?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
