On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:49:52 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote:

> Nope, current hangcheck blows up, and we have an i-g-t testcase for it
> (which the commit msg clearly states). There are also numerous bug
> reports where a dying gpu results in tons of
> WARN_ON(!mutex_locked(dev->struct_mutex)) noise in dmesg (which drowns
> out the gpu hang warning). The locking change fixes this.

Ah, ok, that makes sense. Of course, hangcheck *could* have just taken
struct_mutex were it run in a suitable context.

> The patch adds the required locking to i915_reset.

No, the spinlock protects the forcewake_count access and not the actual
register access, which leaves all kinds of potential for races in
threads not also holding struct_mutex while accessing registers.

If you want a spinlock to protect the register access, it must surround
the whole operation.

-- 
keith.pack...@intel.com

Attachment: pgpgrBG3ePrUe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to