* [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
@ 2017-06-29 13:49 Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 14:39 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-06-29 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
When computing a hash for looking up relcoation target handles in an
execbuf, we start with a large size for the hashtable and proceed to
reduce it until the allocation suceeds. The final attempt is with an
order of 0 (i.e. a single element). This means that we then pass bits=0
to hash_32() which then computes "hash >> (32 - 0)" to lookup the single
element. Right shifting by a value the width of the operand is
undefined, so limit the smallest hash table we use to order 1.
Fixes: 4ff4b44cbb70 ("drm/i915: Store a direct lookup from object handle to vma")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
index 718bb75ad387..54791bcb8ccb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -296,12 +296,8 @@ static int eb_create(struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
break;
} while (--size);
- if (unlikely(!eb->buckets)) {
- eb->buckets = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hlist_head),
- GFP_TEMPORARY);
- if (unlikely(!eb->buckets))
- return -ENOMEM;
- }
+ if (unlikely(!eb->buckets))
+ return -ENOMEM;
eb->lut_size = size;
} else {
@@ -453,7 +449,7 @@ eb_add_vma(struct i915_execbuffer *eb,
return err;
}
- if (eb->lut_size >= 0) {
+ if (eb->lut_size > 0) {
vma->exec_handle = entry->handle;
hlist_add_head(&vma->exec_node,
&eb->buckets[hash_32(entry->handle,
@@ -897,7 +893,7 @@ static void eb_release_vmas(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
static void eb_reset_vmas(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
{
eb_release_vmas(eb);
- if (eb->lut_size >= 0)
+ if (eb->lut_size > 0)
memset(eb->buckets, 0,
sizeof(struct hlist_head) << eb->lut_size);
}
@@ -906,7 +902,7 @@ static void eb_destroy(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
{
GEM_BUG_ON(eb->reloc_cache.rq);
- if (eb->lut_size >= 0)
+ if (eb->lut_size > 0)
kfree(eb->buckets);
}
@@ -2185,8 +2181,11 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev,
}
}
- if (eb_create(&eb))
- return -ENOMEM;
+ err = eb_create(&eb);
+ if (err)
+ goto err_out_fence;
+
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!eb.lut_size);
err = eb_select_context(&eb);
if (unlikely(err))
@@ -2346,6 +2345,7 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev,
i915_gem_context_put(eb.ctx);
err_destroy:
eb_destroy(&eb);
+err_out_fence:
if (out_fence_fd != -1)
put_unused_fd(out_fence_fd);
err_in_fence:
--
2.13.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
2017-06-29 13:49 [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" Chris Wilson
@ 2017-06-29 14:39 ` Patchwork
2017-06-29 14:50 ` [PATCH] " Tvrtko Ursulin
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2017-06-29 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/26556/
State : success
== Summary ==
Series 26556v1 drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/26556/revisions/1/mbox/
Test kms_cursor_legacy:
Subgroup basic-busy-flip-before-cursor-atomic:
fail -> PASS (fi-snb-2600) fdo#100215
Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
Subgroup hang-read-crc-pipe-b:
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-pnv-d510) fdo#101597
fdo#100215 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100215
fdo#101597 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101597
fi-bdw-5557u total:279 pass:264 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:11 time:438s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm total:279 pass:257 dwarn:8 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:14 time:429s
fi-blb-e6850 total:279 pass:224 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:54 time:351s
fi-bsw-n3050 total:279 pass:243 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:36 time:529s
fi-bxt-j4205 total:279 pass:260 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:19 time:507s
fi-byt-j1900 total:279 pass:254 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 time:491s
fi-byt-n2820 total:279 pass:250 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time:484s
fi-glk-2a total:279 pass:260 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:19 time:596s
fi-hsw-4770 total:279 pass:259 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 time:431s
fi-hsw-4770r total:279 pass:259 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 time:413s
fi-ilk-650 total:279 pass:229 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:50 time:421s
fi-ivb-3520m total:279 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:502s
fi-ivb-3770 total:279 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:477s
fi-kbl-7500u total:279 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:462s
fi-kbl-7560u total:279 pass:269 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time:574s
fi-kbl-r total:279 pass:260 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:577s
fi-pnv-d510 total:279 pass:221 dwarn:3 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:55 time:558s
fi-skl-6260u total:279 pass:269 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time:470s
fi-skl-6700hq total:279 pass:223 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:30 skip:24 time:342s
fi-skl-6700k total:279 pass:257 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:464s
fi-skl-6770hq total:279 pass:269 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time:477s
fi-skl-gvtdvm total:279 pass:266 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:13 time:435s
fi-snb-2520m total:279 pass:251 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time:541s
fi-snb-2600 total:279 pass:250 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:29 time:409s
ee2da0ac24fb8d50a03b263eb1fa2e82849eda95 drm-tip: 2017y-06m-29d-13h-14m-49s UTC integration manifest
dc1d4ae drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/Patchwork_5070/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
2017-06-29 13:49 [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 14:39 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
@ 2017-06-29 14:50 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2017-06-29 15:01 ` Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 15:27 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" (rev2) Patchwork
3 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tvrtko Ursulin @ 2017-06-29 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx
On 29/06/2017 14:49, Chris Wilson wrote:
> When computing a hash for looking up relcoation target handles in an
> execbuf, we start with a large size for the hashtable and proceed to
> reduce it until the allocation suceeds. The final attempt is with an
> order of 0 (i.e. a single element). This means that we then pass bits=0
> to hash_32() which then computes "hash >> (32 - 0)" to lookup the single
> element. Right shifting by a value the width of the operand is
> undefined, so limit the smallest hash table we use to order 1.
>
> Fixes: 4ff4b44cbb70 ("drm/i915: Store a direct lookup from object handle to vma")
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> index 718bb75ad387..54791bcb8ccb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> @@ -296,12 +296,8 @@ static int eb_create(struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
> break;
> } while (--size);
>
> - if (unlikely(!eb->buckets)) {
> - eb->buckets = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hlist_head),
> - GFP_TEMPORARY);
Want to maybe drop the NORETRY | NOWARN from the remaining allocation
now? Wasn't it recently discussed that it is to feeble in it's attempts
to allocate?
> - if (unlikely(!eb->buckets))
> - return -ENOMEM;
> - }
> + if (unlikely(!eb->buckets))
> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> eb->lut_size = size;
> } else {
> @@ -453,7 +449,7 @@ eb_add_vma(struct i915_execbuffer *eb,
> return err;
> }
>
> - if (eb->lut_size >= 0) {
> + if (eb->lut_size > 0) {
> vma->exec_handle = entry->handle;
> hlist_add_head(&vma->exec_node,
> &eb->buckets[hash_32(entry->handle,
> @@ -897,7 +893,7 @@ static void eb_release_vmas(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
> static void eb_reset_vmas(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
> {
> eb_release_vmas(eb);
> - if (eb->lut_size >= 0)
> + if (eb->lut_size > 0)
> memset(eb->buckets, 0,
> sizeof(struct hlist_head) << eb->lut_size);
> }
> @@ -906,7 +902,7 @@ static void eb_destroy(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
> {
> GEM_BUG_ON(eb->reloc_cache.rq);
>
> - if (eb->lut_size >= 0)
> + if (eb->lut_size > 0)
> kfree(eb->buckets);
> }
>
> @@ -2185,8 +2181,11 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev,
> }
> }
>
> - if (eb_create(&eb))
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + err = eb_create(&eb);
> + if (err)
> + goto err_out_fence;
> +
> + GEM_BUG_ON(!eb.lut_size);
>
> err = eb_select_context(&eb);
> if (unlikely(err))
> @@ -2346,6 +2345,7 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev,
> i915_gem_context_put(eb.ctx);
> err_destroy:
> eb_destroy(&eb);
> +err_out_fence:
> if (out_fence_fd != -1)
> put_unused_fd(out_fence_fd);
> err_in_fence:
>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
2017-06-29 14:50 ` [PATCH] " Tvrtko Ursulin
@ 2017-06-29 15:01 ` Chris Wilson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-06-29 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tvrtko Ursulin, intel-gfx
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-06-29 15:50:17)
>
> On 29/06/2017 14:49, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > When computing a hash for looking up relcoation target handles in an
> > execbuf, we start with a large size for the hashtable and proceed to
> > reduce it until the allocation suceeds. The final attempt is with an
> > order of 0 (i.e. a single element). This means that we then pass bits=0
> > to hash_32() which then computes "hash >> (32 - 0)" to lookup the single
> > element. Right shifting by a value the width of the operand is
> > undefined, so limit the smallest hash table we use to order 1.
> >
> > Fixes: 4ff4b44cbb70 ("drm/i915: Store a direct lookup from object handle to vma")
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > index 718bb75ad387..54791bcb8ccb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > @@ -296,12 +296,8 @@ static int eb_create(struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
> > break;
> > } while (--size);
> >
> > - if (unlikely(!eb->buckets)) {
> > - eb->buckets = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hlist_head),
> > - GFP_TEMPORARY);
>
> Want to maybe drop the NORETRY | NOWARN from the remaining allocation
> now? Wasn't it recently discussed that it is to feeble in it's attempts
> to allocate?
True that was the point of the allocate afterwards, so that we could do
it with the retry flags. Time for a respin.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
2017-06-29 13:49 [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 14:39 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2017-06-29 14:50 ` [PATCH] " Tvrtko Ursulin
@ 2017-06-29 15:04 ` Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 15:27 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" (rev2) Patchwork
3 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-06-29 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
When computing a hash for looking up relcoation target handles in an
execbuf, we start with a large size for the hashtable and proceed to
reduce it until the allocation suceeds. The final attempt is with an
order of 0 (i.e. a single element). This means that we then pass bits=0
to hash_32() which then computes "hash >> (32 - 0)" to lookup the single
element. Right shifting by a value the width of the operand is
undefined, so limit the smallest hash table we use to order 1.
v2: Keep the retry allocation flag for the final pass
Fixes: 4ff4b44cbb70 ("drm/i915: Store a direct lookup from object handle to vma")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
index 718bb75ad387..b9cee8e37fb0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -288,20 +288,26 @@ static int eb_create(struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
* direct lookup.
*/
do {
+ unsigned int flags;
+
+ /* While we can still reduce the allocation size, don't
+ * raise a warning and allow the allocation to fail.
+ * On the last pass though, we want to try as hard
+ * as possible to perform the allocation and warn
+ * if it fails.
+ */
+ flags = GFP_TEMPORARY;
+ if (size > 1)
+ flags |=__GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN;
+
eb->buckets = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hlist_head) << size,
- GFP_TEMPORARY |
- __GFP_NORETRY |
- __GFP_NOWARN);
+ flags);
if (eb->buckets)
break;
} while (--size);
- if (unlikely(!eb->buckets)) {
- eb->buckets = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hlist_head),
- GFP_TEMPORARY);
- if (unlikely(!eb->buckets))
- return -ENOMEM;
- }
+ if (unlikely(!eb->buckets))
+ return -ENOMEM;
eb->lut_size = size;
} else {
@@ -453,7 +459,7 @@ eb_add_vma(struct i915_execbuffer *eb,
return err;
}
- if (eb->lut_size >= 0) {
+ if (eb->lut_size > 0) {
vma->exec_handle = entry->handle;
hlist_add_head(&vma->exec_node,
&eb->buckets[hash_32(entry->handle,
@@ -897,7 +903,7 @@ static void eb_release_vmas(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
static void eb_reset_vmas(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
{
eb_release_vmas(eb);
- if (eb->lut_size >= 0)
+ if (eb->lut_size > 0)
memset(eb->buckets, 0,
sizeof(struct hlist_head) << eb->lut_size);
}
@@ -906,7 +912,7 @@ static void eb_destroy(const struct i915_execbuffer *eb)
{
GEM_BUG_ON(eb->reloc_cache.rq);
- if (eb->lut_size >= 0)
+ if (eb->lut_size > 0)
kfree(eb->buckets);
}
@@ -2185,8 +2191,11 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev,
}
}
- if (eb_create(&eb))
- return -ENOMEM;
+ err = eb_create(&eb);
+ if (err)
+ goto err_out_fence;
+
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!eb.lut_size);
err = eb_select_context(&eb);
if (unlikely(err))
@@ -2346,6 +2355,7 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev,
i915_gem_context_put(eb.ctx);
err_destroy:
eb_destroy(&eb);
+err_out_fence:
if (out_fence_fd != -1)
put_unused_fd(out_fence_fd);
err_in_fence:
--
2.13.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" (rev2)
2017-06-29 13:49 [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" Chris Wilson
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2017-06-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
@ 2017-06-29 15:27 ` Patchwork
2017-06-29 15:37 ` Chris Wilson
3 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2017-06-29 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" (rev2)
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/26556/
State : success
== Summary ==
Series 26556v2 drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/26556/revisions/2/mbox/
Test gem_exec_flush:
Subgroup basic-batch-kernel-default-uc:
pass -> FAIL (fi-snb-2600) fdo#100007
Test gem_exec_suspend:
Subgroup basic-s4-devices:
dmesg-warn -> PASS (fi-kbl-r) fdo#100125
Test kms_cursor_legacy:
Subgroup basic-busy-flip-before-cursor-atomic:
fail -> PASS (fi-snb-2600) fdo#100215
Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
Subgroup hang-read-crc-pipe-a:
dmesg-warn -> PASS (fi-pnv-d510) fdo#101597 +1
fdo#100007 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100007
fdo#100125 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100125
fdo#100215 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100215
fdo#101597 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101597
fi-bdw-5557u total:279 pass:264 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:11 time:440s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm total:279 pass:257 dwarn:8 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:14 time:428s
fi-blb-e6850 total:279 pass:224 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:54 time:355s
fi-bsw-n3050 total:279 pass:243 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:36 time:535s
fi-bxt-j4205 total:279 pass:260 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:19 time:506s
fi-byt-j1900 total:279 pass:254 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 time:494s
fi-byt-n2820 total:279 pass:250 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time:478s
fi-glk-2a total:279 pass:260 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:19 time:600s
fi-hsw-4770 total:279 pass:259 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 time:437s
fi-hsw-4770r total:279 pass:259 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 time:415s
fi-ilk-650 total:279 pass:229 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:50 time:425s
fi-ivb-3520m total:279 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:502s
fi-ivb-3770 total:279 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:475s
fi-kbl-7500u total:279 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:468s
fi-kbl-7560u total:279 pass:269 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time:566s
fi-kbl-r total:279 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:581s
fi-pnv-d510 total:279 pass:222 dwarn:2 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:55 time:562s
fi-skl-6260u total:279 pass:269 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time:456s
fi-skl-6700hq total:279 pass:223 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:30 skip:24 time:351s
fi-skl-6700k total:279 pass:257 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time:461s
fi-skl-6770hq total:279 pass:269 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time:476s
fi-skl-gvtdvm total:279 pass:266 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:13 time:433s
fi-snb-2600 total:279 pass:249 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:29 time:409s
ee2da0ac24fb8d50a03b263eb1fa2e82849eda95 drm-tip: 2017y-06m-29d-13h-14m-49s UTC integration manifest
ef84925 drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/Patchwork_5072/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" (rev2)
2017-06-29 15:27 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" (rev2) Patchwork
@ 2017-06-29 15:37 ` Chris Wilson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-06-29 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patchwork; +Cc: intel-gfx
Quoting Patchwork (2017-06-29 16:27:13)
> == Series Details ==
>
> Series: drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" (rev2)
> URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/26556/
> State : success
>
> == Summary ==
>
> Series 26556v2 drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32"
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/26556/revisions/2/mbox/
>
> Test gem_exec_flush:
> Subgroup basic-batch-kernel-default-uc:
> pass -> FAIL (fi-snb-2600) fdo#100007
> Test gem_exec_suspend:
> Subgroup basic-s4-devices:
> dmesg-warn -> PASS (fi-kbl-r) fdo#100125
> Test kms_cursor_legacy:
> Subgroup basic-busy-flip-before-cursor-atomic:
> fail -> PASS (fi-snb-2600) fdo#100215
> Test kms_pipe_crc_basic:
> Subgroup hang-read-crc-pipe-a:
> dmesg-warn -> PASS (fi-pnv-d510) fdo#101597 +1
>
> fdo#100007 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100007
> fdo#100125 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100125
> fdo#100215 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100215
> fdo#101597 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101597
Hopefully this explains the weird overrun of eb->buckets[] Tomi reported
in eb_add_vma() under tight memory conditions.
Pushed, thanks for the review,
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-06-29 15:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-06-29 13:49 [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 14:39 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2017-06-29 14:50 ` [PATCH] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2017-06-29 15:01 ` Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 15:04 ` [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
2017-06-29 15:27 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Avoid undefined behaviour of "u32 >> 32" (rev2) Patchwork
2017-06-29 15:37 ` Chris Wilson
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.