Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-03 Thread Aapo Tahkola
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:08, Boris Peterbarg wrote: Aapo Tahkola wrote: I did some figuring on the CB_DPATH problem. After little testing it turns out that the lock up with progs/demos/isosurf goes away when the pacifier sequences are applied to clearbuffer. Im starting to think

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-03 Thread Nicolai Haehnle
On Friday 03 June 2005 10:28, Aapo Tahkola wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:08, Boris Peterbarg wrote: Aapo Tahkola wrote: I did some figuring on the CB_DPATH problem. After little testing it turns out that the lock up with progs/demos/isosurf goes away when the pacifier sequences

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-03 Thread Nicolai Haehnle
On Friday 03 June 2005 00:25, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: You guys seem to be getting closer... When I had X + xfce4 + quake3 running (with this patch + patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers + patch.remove-userspace-pacifiers) X locked up within 2 minutes. However, X + quake3 (no

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-03 Thread Aapo Tahkola
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 14:57:37 +0200 Nicolai Haehnle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 03 June 2005 10:28, Aapo Tahkola wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:08, Boris Peterbarg wrote: Aapo Tahkola wrote: I did some figuring on the CB_DPATH problem. After little testing it turns out

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Aapo Tahkola
Jerome Glisse wrote: On 6/1/05, Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't believe there are any) and/or if it removes certain lockups you are

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Vladimir Dergachev wrote: On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't believe there are any) and/or if it removes certain lockups you are

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Boris Peterbarg
Aapo Tahkola wrote: Jerome Glisse wrote: On 6/1/05, Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't believe there are any) and/or if it

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Vladimir Dergachev wrote: Adam, Great, thank you very much ! No, the system did not need to be actively swapping in fact this would probably have confused the results. (this is why I asked for passive apps) Could you also let me know the following information: Output of free At the

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Aapo Tahkola wrote: I did some figuring on the CB_DPATH problem. After little testing it turns out that the lock up with progs/demos/isosurf goes away when the pacifier sequences are applied to clearbuffer. Im starting to think that this sequence is needed whenever overwriting certain states

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Aapo Tahkola wrote: Jerome Glisse wrote: On 6/1/05, Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't believe there are any)

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: Aapo Tahkola wrote: Jerome Glisse wrote: On 6/1/05, Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: Aapo Tahkola wrote: Jerome Glisse wrote: On 6/1/05, Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread khaqq
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:23:34 -0400 Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One more thing... No matter what patches I apply, or what other X programs and X clients I have running, I've never been able to get more than 3-4 minutes out of UnrealTournament. I was able to play Q3A for an

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-02 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
You guys seem to be getting closer... When I had X + xfce4 + quake3 running (with this patch + patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers + patch.remove-userspace-pacifiers) X locked up within 2 minutes. However, X + quake3 (no window manager), I went thirty minutes before my first problem.

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 21:52 +0200, Nicolai Haehnle wrote: Hello everybody, today's lockup-chasing wrapup follows :) BTW. Look at the removing radeon_acknowledge_irqs hack.. thread and my reply to David more specifically. I think we may be losing interrupts. I don't know if that can explain

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't believe there are any) and/or if it removes certain lockups you are seeing. Well, it's hard for me to judge this patch :-) I played Q3A for

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Jerome Glisse
On 6/1/05, Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't believe there are any) and/or if it removes certain lockups you are seeing. Well,

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Jerome Glisse wrote: On 6/1/05, Adam K Kirchhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't believe there are any) and/or if it removes certain lockups

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 16:39 +0200, Nicolai Haehnle wrote: On Wednesday 01 June 2005 09:22, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 21:52 +0200, Nicolai Haehnle wrote: Hello everybody, today's lockup-chasing wrapup follows :) BTW. Look at the removing

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Vladimir Dergachev
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: Nicolai Haehnle wrote: What you can do: Please, test the attached patch.drm-cmdbuf-more-pacifiers, and report if there are any regressions (I don't believe there are any) and/or if it removes certain lockups you are seeing. Well, it's hard

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Adam K Kirchhoff
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: Vladimir Dergachev wrote: Are you doing a cold restart ? I would help a lot if you could try this with glxgears and/or quake3: I just gave it a shot with UnrealTournament. I'll try with Q3A in a little bit * cold restart * start one of 3d programs measure

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Vladimir Dergachev
Adam, Great, thank you very much ! No, the system did not need to be actively swapping in fact this would probably have confused the results. (this is why I asked for passive apps) Could you also let me know the following information: Output of free Output of cat /proc/pci Output of

Re: [r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-06-01 Thread Pedro Ramalhais
Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: Adam K Kirchhoff wrote: Vladimir Dergachev wrote: Are you doing a cold restart ? I would help a lot if you could try this with glxgears and/or quake3: I just gave it a shot with UnrealTournament. I'll try with Q3A in a little bit * cold restart * start one

[r300] [patches] debugging lockups

2005-05-31 Thread Nicolai Haehnle
Hello everybody, today's lockup-chasing wrapup follows :) Two observations about the lockups I've been seeing: (1) Lockups are more likely to occur when the ring buffer is filled with packet2s for alignment (see the attached experimental patch.drm-align-ring). (2) Lockups are a lot less