From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] drm/i915: Only slightly increment
 hangcheck score if we succesfully kick a ring
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:05:41 +0200
Message-ID: <20130611140541.GX22870@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1370859622-16674-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<1370859622-16674-2-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
	<20130611094500.GV22870@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<20130611134019.GA32097@cantiga.alporthouse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-ea0-f181.google.com (mail-ea0-f181.google.com
	[209.85.215.181])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1438E602D
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f181.google.com with SMTP id a15so3898709eae.40
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:05:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130611134019.GA32097@cantiga.alporthouse.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

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)) {
> > > +				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?

Something like the MI_WAIT hangcheck score, but like I've said as long as
we don't have a real-world bug report (some poor guy disabled semaphores
maybe due to the snb issue?) not worth bothering at all.

I've just thought that if we're unlucky and miss the interrupt a few times
in a row we don't want to accidentally declare the gpu dead.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch