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
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
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
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
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 in nouveau_fence_done(), where
dma_fence_is_signaled() (
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
