[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53CF6622.6060803@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:37:06 +0200
From: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Christian König
<deathsimple@...afone.de>
CC: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
nouveau <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
"Deucher, Alexander" <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 09/17] drm/radeon: use common fence implementation
for fences
Am 23.07.2014 09:31, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Christian König
> <deathsimple@...afone.de> wrote:
>> It's not a locking problem I'm talking about here. Radeons lockup handling
>> kicks in when anything calls into the driver from the outside, if you have a
>> fence wait function that's called from the outside but doesn't handle
>> lockups you essentially rely on somebody else calling another radeon
>> function for the lockup to be resolved.
> So you don't have a timer in radeon that periodically checks whether
> progress is still being made? That's the approach we're using in i915,
> together with some tricks to kick any stuck waiters so that we can
> reliably step in and grab locks for the reset.
We tried this approach, but it didn't worked at all.
I already considered trying it again because of the upcoming fence
implementation, but reconsidering that when a driver is forced to change
it's handling because of the fence implementation that's just another
hint that there is something wrong here.
Christian.
> -Daniel
--
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