On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:43:15AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 01:35:15PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > > Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > If the waiter was currently running, assume it hasn't had a chance > > > to process the pending interupt (e.g, low priority task on a loaded > > > system) and wait until it sleeps before declaring a missed interrupt. > > > > > > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99816 > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 9 +++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c > > > index 4395b177493e..2ad29fb77b2d 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c > > > @@ -45,6 +45,15 @@ static void intel_breadcrumbs_hangcheck(unsigned long > > > data) > > > return; > > > } > > > > > > + /* If the waiter was currently running, assume it hasn't had a chance > > > + * to process the pending interupt (e.g, low priority task on a loaded > > > + * system) and wait until it sleeps before declaring a missed interrupt. > > > + */ > > > + if (!intel_engine_wakeup(engine)) { > > > > But this will happen if there is waiter running, or that there is > > no waiter at all. > > > > Don't we need to exclude the latter? > > We already exclude the latter by cancelling this timer above.
Ah, it's not as clear in the current tree as it will be! Here is the b->irq_enabled check that is equivalent to checking for a waiter. When there are no more waiters, we set irq_enabled to false and so cancel the timer. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
