On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 04:37:26PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Chris Wilson
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 04:05:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:40:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >> > Not sure what you mean here. The che
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 04:05:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:40:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > Not sure what you mean here. The check is fairly easy and has gotten us
>> > out of many a hole before, and ma
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 04:05:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:40:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > 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 t
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 02:40:19PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> 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))
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_
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:20:20AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> After kicking a ring, it should be free to make progress again and so
> should not be accused of being stuck until hangcheck fires once more. In
> order to catch a denial-of-service within a batch or across multiple
> batches, we still
After kicking a ring, it should be free to make progress again and so
should not be accused of being stuck until hangcheck fires once more. In
order to catch a denial-of-service within a batch or across multiple
batches, we still do increment the hangcheck score - just not as
severely so that it ta
