Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915: add struct i915_ctx_hang_stats

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:44:51PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 02:13:26PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:35:28PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> > > To count context losses, add struct i915_ctx_hang_stats for
> > > both i915_hw_context and drm_i915_file_private.
> > > drm_i915_file_private is used when there is no context.
> > > 
> > > v2: renamed and cleaned up the struct (Chris Wilson, Ian Romanick)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
> > >
> > I don't have time to do a proper review before Daniel wants to merge
> > these, and Chris has already reviewed it.
> > 
> > 1-6 are:
> > Acked-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> > 
> > I don't really like the behavior of 7. At least, I'd like to make it
> > something that can be disabled via debugfs, sysfs, or module parameter.
> > (I'd very much prefer it to be opt-in also).  TBH , I only read it very
> > fast, and I'm not horribly opposed to it, just a bunch of complexity for
> > IMO little gain. Presumably the problem it's trying to solve should be
> > fixed with a fix to ddx, mesa, libva, client, whatever.  In the embedded
> > case, the same thing applies.  Banning the guilty doesn't make the user
> > experience any better. So the only thing I see is DoS, but we've never
> > *really* made that our priority anyway, so, meh.
> 
> Right, it is policy. But it is existing policy. Ultimately we want to
> get as much of that decision out of the kernel.

Merged the entire series with a little note added to this patch explaining
the justification for it. Thanks for patches and review.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch