From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Make wait-for-pending-flips more defensive Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:51:47 +0200 Message-ID: <20140826125147.GS15520@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1408536814-12974-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <87k35vlbd8.fsf@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com (mail-we0-f179.google.com [74.125.82.179]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FD676E377 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:51:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f179.google.com with SMTP id u57so14780484wes.10 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 05:51:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k35vlbd8.fsf@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Jani Nikula Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:49:07PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Be sure to always flush a stuck pageflip even if we couldn't possibly > > expect one to be there. > > > > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82612 > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 12 +++++------- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > index a7582a46e82e..5898e7157c4c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > @@ -3359,11 +3359,7 @@ void intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips(struct drm_crtc *crtc) > > struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev; > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > > > > - if (crtc->primary->fb == NULL) > > - return; > > - > > WARN_ON(waitqueue_active(&dev_priv->pending_flip_queue)); > > - > > if (WARN_ON(wait_event_timeout(dev_priv->pending_flip_queue, > > !intel_crtc_has_pending_flip(crtc), > > 60*HZ) == 0)) { > > @@ -3378,9 +3374,11 @@ void intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips(struct drm_crtc *crtc) > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->event_lock, flags); > > } > > Chris, the patch context has changed above, in fact I can't find such > context anywhere. Is the patch otherwise valid against current -fixes? Until we have confirmation that it fixes a real bug I don't think this is material for -fixes. Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch