Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't bail out of intel_wait_ring_buffer too early

2011-10-18 Thread Chris Wilson
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:25:57 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > In the pre-gem days with non-existing hangcheck and gpu reset code, > this timeout of 3 seconds was pretty important to avoid stuck > processes. > > But now we have the hangcheck code in gem that goes to great length > to ensure that the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't bail out of intel_wait_ring_buffer too early

2011-10-11 Thread Daniel Vetter
Oops, git send-email fail, please ignore this double-post. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Mail: dan...@ffwll.ch Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48 ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't bail out of intel_wait_ring_buffer too early

2011-10-11 Thread Daniel Vetter
In the pre-gem days with non-existing hangcheck and gpu reset code, this timeout of 3 seconds was pretty important to avoid stuck processes. But now we have the hangcheck code in gem that goes to great length to ensure that the gpu is really dead before declaring it wedged. So there's no need for

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't bail out of intel_wait_ring_buffer too early

2011-10-11 Thread Daniel Vetter
In the pre-gem days with non-existing hangcheck and gpu reset code, this timeout of 3 seconds was pretty important to avoid stuck processes. But now we have the hangcheck code in gem that goes to great length to ensure that the gpu is really dead before declaring it wedged. So there's no need for