On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 09:11:39PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:53:15AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > Blocking important fixes for a test case is harmful to customers of our
> > > software. I won't argue past t
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 09:09:14PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> This is no more or less flagrant than any other use. Evict CANNOT finish
> if we get interrupted by a signal. If we can't properly evict everything
> from the address space, I can't make any guarantee about anything being
> clean when
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 08:53:15AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Blocking important fixes for a test case is harmful to customers of our
> > software. I won't argue past that. If you won't take it as is, add it to the
> > JIRA task like you
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 07:50:39AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:58:34PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Blocking important fixes for a test case is harmful to customers of our
> > software. I won't argue past that. If you won't take it as is, add it to the
> > JIRA task li
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Blocking important fixes for a test case is harmful to customers of our
> software. I won't argue past that. If you won't take it as is, add it to the
> JIRA task like you said. I'll carry this one around with my dynamic page table
> allocatio
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:58:34PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Blocking important fixes for a test case is harmful to customers of our
> software. I won't argue past that. If you won't take it as is, add it to the
> JIRA task like you said. I'll carry this one around with my dynamic page table
> a
Our current code cannot handle a failure to evict well. You'll get at
the very least the following splat, but usually a lot worse fallout after:
[ 134.819441] [ cut here ]
[ 134.819467] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 442 at
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c:230 i915_gem_evict_
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 11:50:06PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 11:58:28AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 01:30:04PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:15:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:42
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 11:58:28AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 01:30:04PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:15:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:42:56AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:35:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 01:30:04PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:15:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:42:56AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:35:03AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 07:45:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:15:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:42:56AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:35:03AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 07:45:28PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > The issue I was seeing appeare
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:42:56AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:35:03AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 07:45:28PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > The issue I was seeing appeared to seeing from sigkill. In such a case,
> > > the process may want to
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 11:35:03AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 07:45:28PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > The issue I was seeing appeared to seeing from sigkill. In such a case,
> > the process may want to die before the context/work/address space is
> > freeable. For exampl
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 07:45:28PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 09:34:12PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:08:02PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > Our current code cannot handle a failure to evict well. You'll get at
> > > the very least the follow
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 09:34:12PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:08:02PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > Our current code cannot handle a failure to evict well. You'll get at
> > the very least the following splat, but usually a lot worse fallout after:
> >
> > [ 134.8194
On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 01:08:02PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> Our current code cannot handle a failure to evict well. You'll get at
> the very least the following splat, but usually a lot worse fallout after:
>
> [ 134.819441] [ cut here ]
> [ 134.819467] WARNING: CPU:
Our current code cannot handle a failure to evict well. You'll get at
the very least the following splat, but usually a lot worse fallout after:
[ 134.819441] [ cut here ]
[ 134.819467] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 442 at
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c:230 i915_gem_evict_
17 matches
Mail list logo
