On Tue, 2025-04-15 at 11:56 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.04.25 um 16:27 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:54:25AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > @Danilo:
> > > We have now 2 possible solutions for the firing WARN_ON floating.
> > >
> > > Version A (Christian)
>
Am 14.04.25 um 16:27 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:54:25AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
>> @Danilo:
>> We have now 2 possible solutions for the firing WARN_ON floating.
>>
>> Version A (Christian)
>> Check in nouveau_fence_context_kill() whether a fence is already
>> signa
On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:54:25AM +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> @Danilo:
> We have now 2 possible solutions for the firing WARN_ON floating.
>
> Version A (Christian)
> Check in nouveau_fence_context_kill() whether a fence is already
> signaled before setting an error.
>
> Version B (Me)
> Thi
On Fri, 2025-04-11 at 16:10 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-04-11 at 15:06 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 11.04.25 um 14:44 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > > On Fri, 2025-04-11 at 13:05 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Am 11.04.25 um 11:29 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > > >
>
On Fri, 2025-04-11 at 15:06 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 11.04.25 um 14:44 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > On Fri, 2025-04-11 at 13:05 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 11.04.25 um 11:29 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > >
> > > > [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > > It could be, however, that at the sam
Am 11.04.25 um 14:44 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> On Fri, 2025-04-11 at 13:05 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 11.04.25 um 11:29 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
>>
>>> [SNIP]
>>>
>>> It could be, however, that at the same moment
>>> nouveau_fence_signal() is
>>> removing that entry, holding the appr
On Fri, 2025-04-11 at 13:05 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 11.04.25 um 11:29 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
>
> > [SNIP]
> >
> > It could be, however, that at the same moment
> > nouveau_fence_signal() is
> > removing that entry, holding the appropriate lock.
> >
> > So we have a race. Again.
>
Am 11.04.25 um 11:29 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> [SNIP]
> It could be, however, that at the same moment nouveau_fence_signal() is
> removing that entry, holding the appropriate lock.
>
> So we have a race. Again.
Ah, yes of course. If signaled is called with or without the lock is actually
undeter
On Thu, 2025-04-10 at 17:36 +0200, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Thu, 2025-04-10 at 15:16 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 10.04.25 um 15:09 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > > On Thu, 2025-04-10 at 14:58 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > > > > Nou
Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> Nouveau currently relies on the assumption that dma_fences will only
> ever get signaled through nouveau_fence_signal(), which takes care of
> removing a signaled fence from the list nouveau_fence_chan.pending.
>
> This self-imposed rule is violated i
On Thu, 2025-04-10 at 15:16 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 10.04.25 um 15:09 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > On Thu, 2025-04-10 at 14:58 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > > > Nouveau currently relies on the assumption that dma_fences will
> > > >
On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 02:13:34PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > Nouveau currently relies on the assumption that dma_fences will only
> > ever get signaled through nouveau_fence_signal(), which takes care of
> > removing a signaled fence from the
Am 10.04.25 um 15:09 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> On Thu, 2025-04-10 at 14:58 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
>>> Nouveau currently relies on the assumption that dma_fences will
>>> only
>>> ever get signaled through nouveau_fence_signal(), which takes c
On Thu, 2025-04-10 at 14:58 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> > Nouveau currently relies on the assumption that dma_fences will
> > only
> > ever get signaled through nouveau_fence_signal(), which takes care
> > of
> > removing a signaled fence from the
Am 10.04.25 um 14:21 schrieb Danilo Krummrich:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 02:13:34PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
>>> Nouveau currently relies on the assumption that dma_fences will only
>>> ever get signaled through nouveau_fence_signal(), which tak
Am 10.04.25 um 11:24 schrieb Philipp Stanner:
> Nouveau currently relies on the assumption that dma_fences will only
> ever get signaled through nouveau_fence_signal(), which takes care of
> removing a signaled fence from the list nouveau_fence_chan.pending.
>
> This self-imposed rule is violated i
16 matches
Mail list logo
