On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:45:00AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:20:20AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > + if (ring->hangcheck.seqno == seqno) {
> > + if (ring_idle(ring, seqno)) {
> > + if (waitqueue_active(&ring->irq_queue)) {
> > + /* Issue a wake-up to catch stuck h/w.
> > */
> > + DRM_ERROR("Hangcheck timer elapsed...
> > %s idle\n",
> > + ring->name);
> > + wake_up_all(&ring->irq_queue);
> > + ring->hangcheck.score += HUNG;
>
> Not sure whether we want to hit missed interrupts this badly, it was
> rather common a while back ;-) But we can fine-tune this easily now, so
> now reservations for merging from my side.
Not sure what you mean here. The check is fairly easy and has gotten us
out of many a hole before, and makes for a good defense. So how would
you want to fine tune it?
-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
