* [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep
@ 2017-04-06 9:30 Chris Wilson
2017-04-06 9:52 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep (rev3) Patchwork
2017-04-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep Tvrtko Ursulin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-04-06 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
If we attempt to wake up a waiter, who is currently checking the seqno
it will be in the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state and ttwu will report success.
However, it is actually awake and functioning -- so delay reporting the
actual wake up until it sleeps.
v2: Defend against !CONFIG_SMP
v3: Don't filter out calls to wake_up_process
References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100007
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
index 9ccbf26124c6..808d3a3cda0a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
@@ -27,6 +27,12 @@
#include "i915_drv.h"
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+#define task_asleep(tsk) (!(tsk)->on_cpu)
+#else
+#define task_asleep(tsk) ((tsk) != current)
+#endif
+
static unsigned int __intel_breadcrumbs_wakeup(struct intel_breadcrumbs *b)
{
struct intel_wait *wait;
@@ -37,8 +43,16 @@ static unsigned int __intel_breadcrumbs_wakeup(struct intel_breadcrumbs *b)
wait = b->irq_wait;
if (wait) {
result = ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER;
- if (wake_up_process(wait->tsk))
+
+ /* Be careful not to report a successful wakeup if the waiter
+ * is currently processing the seqno, where it will have
+ * already called set_task_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE).
+ */
+ if (task_asleep(wait->tsk))
result |= ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP;
+
+ if (wake_up_process(wait->tsk))
+ result |= ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS;
}
return result;
@@ -98,7 +112,7 @@ static void intel_breadcrumbs_hangcheck(unsigned long data)
* but we still have a waiter. Assuming all batches complete within
* DRM_I915_HANGCHECK_JIFFIES [1.5s]!
*/
- if (intel_engine_wakeup(engine) & ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP) {
+ if (intel_engine_wakeup(engine) == ENGINE_WAKEUP) {
missed_breadcrumb(engine);
mod_timer(&engine->breadcrumbs.fake_irq, jiffies + 1);
} else {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
index cbe61d3f31da..974a5928bec9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
@@ -663,6 +663,10 @@ static inline bool intel_engine_has_waiter(const struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
unsigned int intel_engine_wakeup(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
#define ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER BIT(0)
#define ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP BIT(1)
+#define ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS BIT(2)
+#define ENGINE_WAKEUP (ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER | \
+ ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP | \
+ ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS)
void __intel_engine_disarm_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
void intel_engine_disarm_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
--
2.11.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep (rev3)
2017-04-06 9:30 [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep Chris Wilson
@ 2017-04-06 9:52 ` Patchwork
2017-04-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep Tvrtko Ursulin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2017-04-06 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep (rev3)
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/22445/
State : success
== Summary ==
Series 22445v3 drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/22445/revisions/3/mbox/
fi-bdw-5557u total:278 pass:267 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:11 time: 426s
fi-bdw-gvtdvm total:278 pass:256 dwarn:8 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:14 time: 430s
fi-bsw-n3050 total:278 pass:242 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:36 time: 578s
fi-bxt-j4205 total:278 pass:259 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:19 time: 504s
fi-bxt-t5700 total:278 pass:258 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:20 time: 546s
fi-byt-j1900 total:278 pass:254 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24 time: 484s
fi-byt-n2820 total:278 pass:250 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time: 477s
fi-hsw-4770 total:278 pass:262 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 time: 408s
fi-hsw-4770r total:278 pass:262 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:16 time: 412s
fi-ilk-650 total:278 pass:228 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:50 time: 432s
fi-ivb-3520m total:278 pass:260 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time: 490s
fi-ivb-3770 total:278 pass:260 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time: 473s
fi-kbl-7500u total:278 pass:260 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time: 448s
fi-kbl-7560u total:278 pass:267 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time: 565s
fi-skl-6260u total:278 pass:268 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time: 453s
fi-skl-6700hq total:278 pass:261 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:17 time: 572s
fi-skl-6700k total:278 pass:256 dwarn:4 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:18 time: 459s
fi-skl-6770hq total:278 pass:268 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:10 time: 495s
fi-skl-gvtdvm total:278 pass:265 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:13 time: 437s
fi-snb-2520m total:278 pass:250 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:28 time: 534s
fi-snb-2600 total:278 pass:249 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:29 time: 402s
7303b362817aa4b4c62cdc2dfa586c272982917d drm-tip: 2017y-04m-06d-08h-26m-30s UTC integration manifest
05b9f59 drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep
== Logs ==
For more details see: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/CI/Patchwork_4418/
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep
2017-04-06 9:30 [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep Chris Wilson
2017-04-06 9:52 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep (rev3) Patchwork
@ 2017-04-06 17:40 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2017-04-07 8:23 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tvrtko Ursulin @ 2017-04-06 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx
On 06/04/2017 10:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
> If we attempt to wake up a waiter, who is currently checking the seqno
> it will be in the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state and ttwu will report success.
> However, it is actually awake and functioning -- so delay reporting the
> actual wake up until it sleeps.
>
> v2: Defend against !CONFIG_SMP
> v3: Don't filter out calls to wake_up_process
>
> References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100007
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> index 9ccbf26124c6..808d3a3cda0a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,12 @@
>
> #include "i915_drv.h"
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +#define task_asleep(tsk) (!(tsk)->on_cpu)
> +#else
> +#define task_asleep(tsk) ((tsk) != current)
> +#endif
It really bothers to fish into this low level info which probably isn't
intended to be used from the outside.
> +
> static unsigned int __intel_breadcrumbs_wakeup(struct intel_breadcrumbs *b)
> {
> struct intel_wait *wait;
> @@ -37,8 +43,16 @@ static unsigned int __intel_breadcrumbs_wakeup(struct intel_breadcrumbs *b)
> wait = b->irq_wait;
> if (wait) {
> result = ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER;
> - if (wake_up_process(wait->tsk))
> +
> + /* Be careful not to report a successful wakeup if the waiter
> + * is currently processing the seqno, where it will have
> + * already called set_task_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE).
> + */
> + if (task_asleep(wait->tsk))
> result |= ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP;
And this still has the problem of not being atomic between reporting the
two flags. So the reported status can be false which also bothers me.
I will need to take some more time thinking about this.
Regards,
Tvrtko
> +
> + if (wake_up_process(wait->tsk))
> + result |= ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS;
> }
>
> return result;
> @@ -98,7 +112,7 @@ static void intel_breadcrumbs_hangcheck(unsigned long data)
> * but we still have a waiter. Assuming all batches complete within
> * DRM_I915_HANGCHECK_JIFFIES [1.5s]!
> */
> - if (intel_engine_wakeup(engine) & ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP) {
> + if (intel_engine_wakeup(engine) == ENGINE_WAKEUP) {
> missed_breadcrumb(engine);
> mod_timer(&engine->breadcrumbs.fake_irq, jiffies + 1);
> } else {
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> index cbe61d3f31da..974a5928bec9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> @@ -663,6 +663,10 @@ static inline bool intel_engine_has_waiter(const struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> unsigned int intel_engine_wakeup(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
> #define ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER BIT(0)
> #define ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP BIT(1)
> +#define ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS BIT(2)
> +#define ENGINE_WAKEUP (ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER | \
> + ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP | \
> + ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS)
>
> void __intel_engine_disarm_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
> void intel_engine_disarm_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep
2017-04-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep Tvrtko Ursulin
@ 2017-04-07 8:23 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2017-04-07 9:05 ` Chris Wilson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tvrtko Ursulin @ 2017-04-07 8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx
On 06/04/2017 18:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 06/04/2017 10:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> If we attempt to wake up a waiter, who is currently checking the seqno
>> it will be in the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state and ttwu will report success.
>> However, it is actually awake and functioning -- so delay reporting the
>> actual wake up until it sleeps.
>>
>> v2: Defend against !CONFIG_SMP
>> v3: Don't filter out calls to wake_up_process
>>
>> References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100007
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 4 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
>> index 9ccbf26124c6..808d3a3cda0a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
>> @@ -27,6 +27,12 @@
>>
>> #include "i915_drv.h"
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> +#define task_asleep(tsk) (!(tsk)->on_cpu)
>> +#else
>> +#define task_asleep(tsk) ((tsk) != current)
>> +#endif
>
> It really bothers to fish into this low level info which probably isn't
> intended to be used from the outside.
>
>> +
>> static unsigned int __intel_breadcrumbs_wakeup(struct
>> intel_breadcrumbs *b)
>> {
>> struct intel_wait *wait;
>> @@ -37,8 +43,16 @@ static unsigned int
>> __intel_breadcrumbs_wakeup(struct intel_breadcrumbs *b)
>> wait = b->irq_wait;
>> if (wait) {
>> result = ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER;
>> - if (wake_up_process(wait->tsk))
>> +
>> + /* Be careful not to report a successful wakeup if the waiter
>> + * is currently processing the seqno, where it will have
>> + * already called set_task_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE).
>> + */
>> + if (task_asleep(wait->tsk))
>> result |= ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP;
>
> And this still has the problem of not being atomic between reporting the
> two flags. So the reported status can be false which also bothers me.
>
> I will need to take some more time thinking about this.
Warning, the idea below is potentially unrefined! :)
How about a scheme where on wake_up we would atomic_inc our own wakeup
counter, and then the signaller keeps atomic_dec_and_test one item at a
time until it has consumed all the wakeups? The code in
intel_breadcrumbs_hangcheck only declares a missed breadcrumb if the
wakeup counter is one, meaning this was the first wakeup?
Regards,
Tvrtko
>> +
>> + if (wake_up_process(wait->tsk))
>> + result |= ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS;
>> }
>>
>> return result;
>> @@ -98,7 +112,7 @@ static void intel_breadcrumbs_hangcheck(unsigned
>> long data)
>> * but we still have a waiter. Assuming all batches complete within
>> * DRM_I915_HANGCHECK_JIFFIES [1.5s]!
>> */
>> - if (intel_engine_wakeup(engine) & ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP) {
>> + if (intel_engine_wakeup(engine) == ENGINE_WAKEUP) {
>> missed_breadcrumb(engine);
>> mod_timer(&engine->breadcrumbs.fake_irq, jiffies + 1);
>> } else {
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
>> index cbe61d3f31da..974a5928bec9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
>> @@ -663,6 +663,10 @@ static inline bool intel_engine_has_waiter(const
>> struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> unsigned int intel_engine_wakeup(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
>> #define ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER BIT(0)
>> #define ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP BIT(1)
>> +#define ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS BIT(2)
>> +#define ENGINE_WAKEUP (ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER | \
>> + ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP | \
>> + ENGINE_WAKEUP_SUCCESS)
>>
>> void __intel_engine_disarm_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
>> void intel_engine_disarm_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep
2017-04-07 8:23 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
@ 2017-04-07 9:05 ` Chris Wilson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2017-04-07 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tvrtko Ursulin; +Cc: intel-gfx
On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:23:26AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 06/04/2017 18:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >On 06/04/2017 10:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>If we attempt to wake up a waiter, who is currently checking the seqno
> >>it will be in the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state and ttwu will report success.
> >>However, it is actually awake and functioning -- so delay reporting the
> >>actual wake up until it sleeps.
> >>
> >>v2: Defend against !CONFIG_SMP
> >>v3: Don't filter out calls to wake_up_process
> >>
> >>References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100007
> >>Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >>Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> >>Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> >>---
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 4 ++++
> >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> >>b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> >>index 9ccbf26124c6..808d3a3cda0a 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> >>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> >>@@ -27,6 +27,12 @@
> >>
> >> #include "i915_drv.h"
> >>
> >>+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >>+#define task_asleep(tsk) (!(tsk)->on_cpu)
> >>+#else
> >>+#define task_asleep(tsk) ((tsk) != current)
> >>+#endif
> >
> >It really bothers to fish into this low level info which probably isn't
> >intended to be used from the outside.
> >
> >>+
> >> static unsigned int __intel_breadcrumbs_wakeup(struct
> >>intel_breadcrumbs *b)
> >> {
> >> struct intel_wait *wait;
> >>@@ -37,8 +43,16 @@ static unsigned int
> >>__intel_breadcrumbs_wakeup(struct intel_breadcrumbs *b)
> >> wait = b->irq_wait;
> >> if (wait) {
> >> result = ENGINE_WAKEUP_WAITER;
> >>- if (wake_up_process(wait->tsk))
> >>+
> >>+ /* Be careful not to report a successful wakeup if the waiter
> >>+ * is currently processing the seqno, where it will have
> >>+ * already called set_task_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE).
> >>+ */
> >>+ if (task_asleep(wait->tsk))
> >> result |= ENGINE_WAKEUP_ASLEEP;
> >
> >And this still has the problem of not being atomic between reporting the
> >two flags. So the reported status can be false which also bothers me.
> >
> >I will need to take some more time thinking about this.
>
> Warning, the idea below is potentially unrefined! :)
>
> How about a scheme where on wake_up we would atomic_inc our own
> wakeup counter, and then the signaller keeps atomic_dec_and_test one
> item at a time until it has consumed all the wakeups? The code in
> intel_breadcrumbs_hangcheck only declares a missed breadcrumb if the
> wakeup counter is one, meaning this was the first wakeup?
Yeah, I'd been trying to convince myself to be happy with something like
that as well. I've been contemplating an "on-cpu" bit inside the struct
intel_wait. You will still have the complaint that the two tests are not
atomic, and I'll be handwaving that the worst-case outcome is one extra
timer period before the missed breadcrumb is spotted.
Just can't convince myself that it is worth it. Whilst I can see that if
we starve the system it is quite possible that the bottom-half never
gets run and that it may be preempted before we perform our checks, it
just seems so unlikely.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-04-07 9:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-04-06 9:30 [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep Chris Wilson
2017-04-06 9:52 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep (rev3) Patchwork
2017-04-06 17:40 ` [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Only report a wakeup if the waiter was truly asleep Tvrtko Ursulin
2017-04-07 8:23 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2017-04-07 9:05 ` 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.