Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Reset request handling for gen8+

From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: Tomas Elf <tomas.elf@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Reset request handling for gen8+
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:42:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150618114255.GK24012@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5582A90F.8070004@intel.com>

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:18:39PM +0100, Tomas Elf wrote:
> My point was more along the lines of bailing out if the reset
> request fails and not return an error message but simply keep track
> of the number of times we've attempted the reset request. By not
> returning an error we would allow more subsequent hang detections to
> happen (since the hang is still there), which would end up in the
> same reset request in the future. If the reset request would fail
> more times we would simply increment the counter and at one point we
> would decide that we've had too many unsuccessful reset request
> attempts and simply go ahead with the reset anyway and if the reset
> would fail we would return an error at that point in time, which
> would result in a terminally wedged state. But, yeah, I can see why
> we shouldn't do this.

Skipping to the middle!

I understand the merit in trying the reset a few times before giving up,
it would just need a bit of restructuring to try the reset before
clearing gem state (trivial) and requeueing the hangcheck. I am just
wary of feature creep before we get stuck into TDR, which promises to
change how we think about resets entirely.

I am trying not to block your work by doing "it would be nice if" tasks
first! :)
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx