From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Steven Newbury <steve@snewbury.org.uk>
Subject: drm-next i915 regression? ( was: Re: PCI resources above 4GB)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:52:08 +0100
Message-ID: <1334325128.2910.24.camel@Nokia-N900>
References: <1333968563.5678.19.camel@infinity>
	 <CAE9FiQVHf_pcXUspOtLXx4XminmzdWja3Ra2Wh5jQRbfNOQ1eQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4F8467AA.90305@snewbury.org.uk>
	 <CAE9FiQWaop0NE7ZJu6jVW3SnxLkOJ9hRKh4xMNk64XjCAMRMMw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4F848357.3060007@snewbury.org.uk>
	 <CAE9FiQXTgh3X4x+xD1T0ipsEbhbPtctYucfGeuWK=cq7kHeZ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4F848E10.1090703@snewbury.org.uk>
	 <CAE9FiQXvwYrJhLi91VDVtD4+OOfbGQ1U20-Cap+8tBZUt7QCkA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1334089568.4083.2.camel@Nokia-N900>
	 <CAE9FiQWnvB2VbBQQaEnDE0nf+Zwy6nyoGrEuVrUesQEzgYfbvA@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4F84A3EC.6030903@snewbury.org.uk>
	 <CAE9FiQU+EEtBWrc66Sw4GFQjSy9Vh9fyFvhgQUheev_aVpAzrw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1334229754.30606.7.camel@Nokia-N900>
	 <CAE9FiQXhzAOErMeQxz6U-BSYAK1LirHMpiFH90iRoXxwduPhPw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1334248841.2910.6.camel@Nokia-N900>
	 <CAE9FiQXvHjW3pL4Nrb-3Oqw5Ht-7MqCL7_isL+Gm41qWOd1yRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1334317529.2910.21.camel@Nokia-N900> <4F8814F7.20808@snewbury.org.uk>
	 <4F8820F0.5010607@snewbury.org.uk>  <4F88297B.3020200@snewbury.org.uk>
Reply-To: Steven Newbury <steve@snewbury.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Return-path: <linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F88297B.3020200@snewbury.org.uk>
Content-ID: <1334325128.2910.23.camel@Nokia-N900>
Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Steven Newbury <steve@snewbury.org.uk>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>, "Barnes, Jesse" <jesse.barnes@intel.com>, Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, DRI mailing list <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, 14:26:19 BST, Steven Newbury <steve@snewbury.org.u=
k> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>=20
> On 13/04/12 13:49, Steven Newbury wrote:
> > On 13/04/12 12:58, Steven Newbury wrote:
> >=20
> > > > It's not stable, crashes soon after GMA comes up. (Could be=20
> > > > unrelated breakage in linus/master? Probably not but I will=20
> > > > verify.)=C2=A0  I noticed the high allocations are occuring fro=
m the=20
> > > > top of 64-bit address-space, whilst /proc/cpuinfo shows only
> > > > 48 bits of virtual addressing.=C2=A0  Could that be why..?
> > > To reply to myself again, I should have said crashes shortly
> > > after Xorg initialises using the intel driver, in both cases!
> > > I'm building a kernel now without the patch set to see if it's=20
> > > unrelated.=C2=A0  If it still dies I'll try applying your patch s=
et to
> > > a branch without the changes from linus/master... (should have
> > > done that anyway...)
> >=20
> > Okay, I instead created a branch from an older 3.4-rc1+ kernel
> > tree, running it now, and it seems to be stable.=C2=A0  Something p=
erhaps
> > in the newer tree not playing nicely.=C2=A0  I'll see if I can bise=
ct it,
> > or at least base of rc2 if that works... (I'm a little wary of
> > crashing the system too much and losing my btrfs filesystem...)
> rc2 is fine as well.=C2=A0  Not sure what happened there, I need to b=
e more
> careful about keeping a clean tree to work from.
I'm pretty sure the crash was a from a drm-next regression. I'll try bi=
secting it....