Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-10 Thread Marcin Slusarz
On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 11:42:08PM +0100, okias wrote: Lastest patch work for me. NV96 NV92 works too. ___ Nouveau mailing list Nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-06 Thread Maarten Maathuis
Patch v5 remains necessary (a simple swap of pfifo and pgraph unload isn't enough) even on a current kernel, the change is that it's now possible to generate pgraph errors without locking up. Without the patch even nop fails in loops, while running under fbcon. Maarten. On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-06 Thread Ben Skeggs
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 18:58 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: Patch v5 remains necessary (a simple swap of pfifo and pgraph unload isn't enough) even on a current kernel, the change is that it's now possible to generate pgraph errors without locking up. Without the patch even nop fails in loops,

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-05 Thread Maarten Maathuis
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Ben Skeggs skeg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 23:54 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: I forgot to mention that you should run nop from fbcon without X running for reliable lockups. Yup, that's what I've been doing. On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:39 PM,

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-05 Thread Maarten Maathuis
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Ben Skeggs skeg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 23:54 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: I forgot to mention that you should run nop from fbcon without X running for reliable

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-05 Thread Maarten Maathuis
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Ben Skeggs skeg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 23:54 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: I forgot to

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-05 Thread Maarten Maathuis
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Ben Skeggs skeg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 23:54 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: I forgot to

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-04 Thread Maarten Maathuis
I've narrowed it down further, the pgraph-fifo_access bit is still cleanup (register 0x400500 represents pgraph fifo access), the rest appears needed for the desired effect. The reordering of pfifo and pgraph destroy is needed. As usual, feedback is appreciated. Maarten. On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-04 Thread Ben Skeggs
On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 20:29 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: I've narrowed it down further, the pgraph-fifo_access bit is still cleanup (register 0x400500 represents pgraph fifo access), the rest appears needed for the desired effect. The reordering of pfifo and pgraph destroy is needed. As

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-04 Thread okias
Lastest patch work for me. NV96 2010/1/4 Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com: I've narrowed it down further, the pgraph-fifo_access bit is still cleanup (register 0x400500 represents pgraph fifo access), the rest appears needed for the desired effect. The reordering of pfifo and pgraph

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-04 Thread Maarten Maathuis
I forgot to mention that you should run nop from fbcon without X running for reliable lockups. On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Ben Skeggs skeg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 20:29 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: I've narrowed it down further, the pgraph-fifo_access bit is still

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-02 Thread Maarten Maathuis
Please do report your successes, and not only failures. On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Maarten Maathuis madman2...@gmail.com wrote: Many people using nv50+ hardware are aware of gpu lockups when a fifo closes under certain conditions. Based on a mmio-trace and some trail and error testing

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-02 Thread Johannes Obermayr
Am Samstag, 2. Januar 2010 16:39:55 schrieb Maarten Maathuis: Please do report your successes, and not only failures. Hi, I included it in my openSUSE Build Service project. I think some people will update und try it... Johannes On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Maarten Maathuis

Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH/TESTING(all hw)/DISCUSSION] FIFO (minor) create and (major) destroy instabilities on nv50+

2010-01-02 Thread Maarten Maathuis
I hope you did add a note for your victims :-) On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Johannes Obermayr johannesoberm...@gmx.de wrote: Am Samstag, 2. Januar 2010 16:39:55 schrieb Maarten Maathuis: Please do report your successes, and not only failures. Hi, I included it in my openSUSE Build