[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <b94cdc$6rvo8m@fmsmga001.fm.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 09:43:08 +0100
From: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 3.5 regression on i915
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:20:16 +0200, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 09:04:34AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > The crash happens here in i915_gem_entervt_ioctl() :
> > >
> > > 3659 BUG_ON(!list_empty(&dev_priv->mm.active_list));
> > > 3660 BUG_ON(!list_empty(&dev_priv->mm.flushing_list));
> > > -> 3661 BUG_ON(!list_empty(&dev_priv->mm.inactive_list));
> > > 3662 mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> >
> > That BUG_ON there is silly and can simply be removed. The check is to
> > verify that no batches were submitted to the kernel whilst the UMS/GEM
> > client was suspended - to which the BUG_ONs are a crude approximation.
> > Furthermore, the checks are too late, since it means we attempted to
> > program the hardware whilst it was in an invalid state, the BUG_ONs are
> > the least of your concerns at that point.
>
> Excellent, that fixed it ! X still segfaults when KMS is used, but
> I expect more of a pure user-space issue here since there is nothing
> in dmesg.
>
> Would some of you accept the following patch and tag it for -stable ?
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists