On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:41:01PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:28:13PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:28:13PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:16:33PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > @@ -379,10 +389,17 @@ void
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:16:33PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > @@ -379,10 +389,17 @@ void i915_gem_restore_fences(struct drm_device *dev)
> > * Commit delayed tiling changes if we have an object still
> >
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:25:18PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:10:21PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:16:33PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > @@ -379,10 +389,17 @@ void i915_gem_restore_fences(struct drm_device *dev)
> > >*
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 12:16:33PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> During rpm resume we restore the fences, but we do not have the
> protection of struct_mutex. This rules out updating the activity
> tracking on the fences, and requires us to rely on the rpm as the
> serialisation barrier instead.
>
This was already;
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
During rpm resume we restore the fences, but we do not have the
protection of struct_mutex. This rules out updating the activity
tracking on the fences, and requires us to rely on the rpm as the
serialisation barrier instead.
[ 350.298052] [drm:intel_runtime_resume [i915]] Resuming device
[