Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2018-04-23 14:03:02)
> Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> > @@ -148,6 +149,12 @@ static void intel_breadcrumbs_fake_irq(struct
> > timer_list *t)
> > if (!b->irq_armed)
> > return;
> >
> > + /* If the user has disabled the fake-irq, restore the hangchecking */
> > + if (!test_bit(engine->id, &engine->i915->gpu_error.missed_irq_rings))
> > {
> > + mod_timer(&b->hangcheck, wait_timeout());
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Looking at the cancel_fake_irq() now, which we still need to keep as
> sync, I think there is race introduce now as this can queue itself.
>
> I think we want to also change the cancel_fake_irq() to do
> the bit clearing first, not last after the del_timer_syncs().
I see what you mean, but I think we want
del_timer_sync(&b->fake_irq); // may queue b->hangcheck
del_timer_sync(&b->hangcheck);
clear_bit(engine->id. missed_irq_rings);
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
