From: Javier MV <javiermv@gmail.com>
To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: javiermv@duck.com, jani.nikula@linux.intel.com,
joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com, rodrigo.vivi@intel.com,
tursulin@ursulin.net, matthew.brost@intel.com,
daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com, umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/i915/guc: Complete all requests of a non-schedulable context
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 15:33:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261111153304.22079-1-javiermv@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <sashiko-outbox-209177@kernel.org>
On the out-of-order completion in the else branch: that branch keeps the
existing behaviour (only rq is completed, as before this patch). The patch
adds the off-HW case and moves the existing call under the lock.
Leaving rq incomplete there looks right while the context is still enabled
or has a disable in flight. Every path that makes a context non-schedulable
calls guc_context_revoke() right after setting the flag. The schedule
disable that revoke sends, or the one already pending, then completes with
SCHED_STATE_BANNED set, and its done handler cancels the whole list in order.
I'm less sure about the pending enable case. As the review says, the enable
done handler cancels nothing, and revoke has already run by then. So unless
the context runs again, rq would never complete, where today it at least
gets completed. My instrumented runs only logged the off-HW path, so I have
no data on how often either state happens.
If you'd like this handled in this series, I can send a v3 that leaves rq
to the cancel when a disable is pending or the context is enabled, and
keeps the current behaviour for a pending enable.
Javier MV
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-11 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-11 13:57 [PATCH v2 0/2] drm/i915/guc: Fix requests of a banned context never completing Javier MV
2026-11-11 13:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] drm/i915/guc: Complete all requests of a non-schedulable context Javier MV
2026-11-11 14:40 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-11 15:33 ` Javier MV [this message]
2026-11-11 15:29 ` Vivi, Rodrigo
2026-11-11 13:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/i915/guc: Don't unblock " Javier MV
2026-11-11 15:01 ` ✗ LGCI.VerificationFailed: failure for drm/i915/guc: Fix requests of a banned context never completing (rev2) Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261111153304.22079-1-javiermv@gmail.com \
--to=javiermv@gmail.com \
--cc=daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=javiermv@duck.com \
--cc=joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=tursulin@ursulin.net \
--cc=umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.