On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:36:33AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:26:38AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Oh, I guess that's the tricky bit why the old approach never worked - > > because reset_in_progress is set we failed the context/ppgtt loading > > through the rings and screwed up. > > > > Problem with your approach is that we want to bail out here if a reset is > > in progress, so we can't just eat the EAGAIN. If we do that we potentially > > deadlock or overflow the ring. > > > > I think we need a different hack here, and a few layers down (i.e. at the > > place where we actually generate that offending -EAGAIN). > > > > - Around the re-init sequence in the reset function we set > > dev_priv->mm.reload_in_reset or similar. Since we hold dev->struct_mutex > > no one will see that, as long as we never leak it out of the critical > > section. > > > > - In the ring_begin code that checks for gpu hangs we ignore > > reset_in_progress if this bit is set. > > > > - Both places need fairly big comments to explain what exactly is going > > on. > > This is going from bad to worse. I think you can do better if you looked > at the problem afresh.
Well we can't really reset reset_in_progress at that point, since not all reset is done yet. Especially the modeset stuff. So I don't think that reordering the reset sequence would get us out of this ugly spot. And I don't see any other solution really. Do you? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
