On 21 February 2018 at 19:14, Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org> wrote: > On Thursday, February 8, 2018 8:47:00 PM PST Emil Velikov wrote: >> Rejected (9) >> ============ >> Jason Ekstrand (2): >> e52a9f18d69c94b7cb7f81361cdb9e2582c3d742 i965: Replace >> draw_aux_buffer_disabled with draw_aux_usage >> 20f70ae3858bc213e052a8434f0e637eb36203c4 i965/draw: Set >> NEW_AUX_STATE when draw aux changes >> Reason: Introduce multiple regressions in the piglit compute shader tests. > > Hi Emil, > Hi Ken,
> These are absolutely critical fixes. These patches fix GPU hangs and > crashes in Glamor which cause people's X session to die when doing > exciting things like using their text editor, IDE, or desktop panel. > It's responsible for a huge swath of our GPU hang bugs on i965. > > Did Jason or I miss an email from you about these being rejected, > other than at the bottom of a large changelog in an RC announcement? > Which Piglit tests are regressing? My guess is that we just need to > nominate another patch, as they aren't broken in master. > You're right, I should have included more specifics. The commits cause approx. 1700 regressions in the following: spec/amd_shader_trinary_minmax/execution/built-in-functions/cs-* spec/arb_compute_shader/execution/* spec/arb_gpu_shader_int64/execution/built-in-functions/cs-* spec/glsl-4.30/execution/built-in-functions/cs-* I've a dozen of attempts trying to find the missing patch(es). I _really_ want the patches to land, see [1]. As a rule the author of a rejected patch or one with merge conflicts is explicitly CCed in the RC email. Additionally, there is also a reply[2] to the patch itself with request for a)information and/or b) backport. Yes, we can remind developers more frequently. Yet at some point it only gets annoying and ultimately - ignored. Suggestions are more than welcome. > At this point, we've done 5 point releases in the 17.3.x series, which > have had DRI3 crashes when pageflipping (in all drivers), and X server > hangs and crashes galore in i965/Gen9+. Worse, we fixed those hangs a > month ago and haven't managed to ship them yet. We also managed to > ship a radv that broke completely. > > At this point, 17.3.x is looking like the worst Mesa release in recent > memory, and I'm about on the verge of advising people to just go back > to 17.2 until 18.0 comes out. It's pretty frustrating, and I feel bad > for our users, who depend on our software for their computer to work. > According to the results from the Jenkins setup, there are no regressions in 17.3.x wrt the 17.2.x series. Perhaps we lack test coverage? Additionally I would not call for 17.2 since I did notice some glitches with it and Tomb Rider and Dota2. Latter triggered by a Dota2 update. > We have to do better, somehow - myself included. Ideally, we'd find a > way to avoid major bugs like this in the first place. Barring that, > do we need to have developers take a more active role in backporting > fixes again? It seems like our nomination process works for simple > things, but for more complex series, it doesn't work as well. Maybe > we need to proactively put together (tested) pull requests for stable? > Hear, hear (aka yes please) for more developer backports. Should be a good idea to also cross review for the conflicts that myself or the Igalia team resolve. Obviously that should not substitute testing _and_ reporting from the different teams. Currently the _only_ information that we have is from the Jenkins CI. Thanks, Emil [1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-dev/2018-February/185822.html [2] Must admit the last one, isn't at 100% quite yet. _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
