On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jerome Glisse <j.gli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 8:58 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:54 AM, Jerome Glisse <j.gli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Jerome Glisse <j.gli...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> I actually care a lot about lockups. Well, you are complaing about >>>>>> lockups, yet you have quite obvious bugs in your hyperz code, so let's >>>>>> fix them first. (I wouldn't even try and run the hyperz code in its >>>>>> current state. Please don't take that personally.) Then, if the >>>>>> lockups persist, we can start looking into *what* fixes them. You seem >>>>>> to think that this patch helps a lot, but you don't say why. Aren't >>>>>> you interested in what sequence of GPU commands helps? If I am >>>>>> counting correctly, there are 7 changes in behavior in this patch. It >>>>>> should be pretty easy to nail down the few that help, document them >>>>>> (like /* these two lines fix a lockup with hyperz */), and discard the >>>>>> rest. The documenting part is very important, so that the other >>>>>> developers won't break your code accidentally. >>>>>> >>>>>> Marek >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You haven't even try hyperz and you say i have an obvious bug, that's >>>>> kind of funny, but you would not know why. I try pretty much all of >>>> >>>> Oh come on, I already told you about all the bugs I found in the >>>> hyperz patch. You now know them too, and so does everybody else >>>> reading mesa-dev. >>>> >>>> Marek >>>> >>> >>> None of the issue you pointed out showed in piglit, none of them did >>> have impact on things like openarena, nexuiz, doomIII, lightmark, ... >>> so no issue you pointed does not cripple the hyperz patch, it's >>> working quite well for many things. Before you extrapolate, yes issue >>> you pointed out have impact in backward use of GL but none the less i >>> addressed them and i can tell you it does help a bit with lockup. >> >> I have no doubt that it helps with your lockups and I also have no >> doubt that the piece of code that helps can be bisected. I have >> mentioned 7 changes in the patch which are questionable, so the >> bisection should ideally take 3 steps. After we find the change which >> helps (and document it), we can discard the rest. That should give us >> the same stability as this patch does, but without unnecessary code >> which does cost GPU cycles (regardless of whether it is measurable on >> a particular machine or not). >> >> By the way, in draw_vbo, the emit functions should be called after >> r600_need_cs_space. Otherwise the command stream may overflow. >> >> Marek > > Again i haven't found a combination other than the outcome of the full > patch that helps more. So be my guest bisect on rv610, rv635, rv670, > rv710, rv740, rv770.
So your patch doesn't fix any issue with evergreen? That's great. Thanks for keeping that to yourself. It's always a pleasure working with you. :) Now that we know the truth, the questionable changes to the evergreen code can be discarded freely. Concerning older chipsets, I can do the bisection only on rs880, rv670 and rv730. That will have to suffice. One way or another, every single change must be done for a *reason* and that reason should be documented if it's not obvious. Please give me all the necessary information, so that I can start bisecting. That is what lockups your patch fixes and where (name apps or tests, a specific place in a game, etc.) on what chipsets and whether hyperz is enabled. It is very likely that all the changes I questioned in my first email do not make any difference with regard to lockups, because there are also other changes in your patch which may help too and which I fully agree with. Marek _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
