On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 01:39:24PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> Jani Nikula writes:
>
> > On Wed, 02 Sep 2015, Arun Siluvery wrote:
> >> On 20/08/2015 16:27, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:34:59PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> If we leave the last_retired_head to pre-
Jani Nikula writes:
> On Wed, 02 Sep 2015, Arun Siluvery wrote:
>> On 20/08/2015 16:27, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:34:59PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
If we leave the last_retired_head to pre-reset value, we might
end up in a situation where intel_ring_space() r
On Wed, 02 Sep 2015, Arun Siluvery wrote:
> On 20/08/2015 16:27, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:34:59PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
>>> If we leave the last_retired_head to pre-reset value, we might
>>> end up in a situation where intel_ring_space() returns wrong
>>> value on ne
On 20/08/2015 16:27, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:34:59PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
If we leave the last_retired_head to pre-reset value, we might
end up in a situation where intel_ring_space() returns wrong
value on next hardware init.
http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patc
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:34:59PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> If we leave the last_retired_head to pre-reset value, we might
> end up in a situation where intel_ring_space() returns wrong
> value on next hardware init.
http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/46612/
and earlier
-Chris
--
Chris
If we leave the last_retired_head to pre-reset value, we might
end up in a situation where intel_ring_space() returns wrong
value on next hardware init.
The recent GuC changes made ringbuffer size much smaller. Thus
the odds grew that we got pre-reset last_retired_head in
a value so that intel_rin
