On 14/05/18 08:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-05-14 15:51:04)
On 12/05/18 02:03, Chris Wilson wrote:
If we trigger "too many" resets, the context and even the file, will be
banend and subsequent execbufs should fail with -EIO.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Does this replace gem_reset_stats@test_ban?
gem_reset_stats was queued to be rewritten from scratch a few years ago.
In short, no it doesn't replace as they are asking slightly different
questions. gem_eio is asking that if banned we get EIO. I have no idea
what API gem_reset_stats is supposed to be asking about, since banning
is not an aspect of DRM_IOCTL_I915_GET_RESET_STATS and so should be
treated very lightly to avoid over-specificity. (Banning is an internal
kernel policy in the name of DoS prevention and not a rigorous defense
or subject to user control.)
I am not sure how much the intention of the tests are different :), but
if that is the case then we need to check that other contexts are not
being affected after a ban and they do not report -EIO on submission.
Thanks,
Antonio
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
