Hi Chris, > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > @@ -1186,6 +1186,21 @@ static void execlists_submit_ports(struct > intel_engine_cs *engine) > /* we need to manually load the submit queue */ > if (execlists->ctrl_reg) > writel(EL_CTRL_LOAD, execlists->ctrl_reg); > + > + /* > + * Now this is evil magic. > + * > + * Adding the same udelay() to process_csb before we clear > + * execlists->pending (that is after we receive the HW ack for this > + * submit and before we can submit again) does not relieve the symptoms > + * (machine lockup). So is the active difference here the wait under > + * the irq-off spinlock? That gives more credance to the theory that > + * the issue is interrupt delivery. Also note that we still rely on > + * disabling RPS, again that seems like an issue with simultaneous > + * GT interrupts being delivered to the same CPU. > + */ > + if (IS_TIGERLAKE(engine->i915)) > + udelay(250);
you want a delay of 250us. Two questions: 1. why 250? 2. is there any good reason for using 'udelay' for sleeping 250us (that is quite a long time) and not 'usleep'? Thanks, Andi _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
