Oops at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring

2011-03-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:54:45 -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:46:34PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > This is the single chunk required. I had thought that the actual > > insertion/deletion was serialised under the struct mutex and the intention > > of the spinl

Oops at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring

2011-03-17 Thread Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:46:34PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:39:07 -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski > wrote: > > I don't know if it's the most correct fix, but perhaps the simple fix > > is needed in the code. It's against latest Linus tree. We may have an > > already re

Oops at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring

2011-03-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:39:07 -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > I don't know if it's the most correct fix, but perhaps the simple fix > is needed in the code. It's against latest Linus tree. We may have an > already removed client_list, or we didn't add any item to client_list > (file_priv

Re: Oops at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring

2011-03-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:54:45 -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:46:34PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > This is the single chunk required. I had thought that the actual > > insertion/deletion was serialised under the struct mutex and the intention > > of the spinl

Re: Oops at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring

2011-03-17 Thread Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:46:34PM +, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:39:07 -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski > wrote: > > I don't know if it's the most correct fix, but perhaps the simple fix > > is needed in the code. It's against latest Linus tree. We may have an > > already re

Oops at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring

2011-03-17 Thread Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski
(please CC me if replying) Hi, recently I saw a report about an oops in 2.6.38-rc7 in i915, attached at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/733780 Unfortunately the oops is cut (without call trace): [126167.230394] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 00100104 [126167.

Re: Oops at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring

2011-03-17 Thread Chris Wilson
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:39:07 -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski wrote: > I don't know if it's the most correct fix, but perhaps the simple fix > is needed in the code. It's against latest Linus tree. We may have an > already removed client_list, or we didn't add any item to client_list > (file_priv

Oops at i915_gem_retire_requests_ring

2011-03-17 Thread Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski
(please CC me if replying) Hi, recently I saw a report about an oops in 2.6.38-rc7 in i915, attached at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/733780 Unfortunately the oops is cut (without call trace): [126167.230394] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 00100104 [126167.