From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915: add struct i915_ctx_hang_stats Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:53:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20130613095015.GA23483@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1371029734-10355-1-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@intel.com> <20130612211325.GA17916@bwidawsk.net> <20130612224451.GJ32648@cantiga.alporthouse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-ea0-f173.google.com (mail-ea0-f173.google.com [209.85.215.173]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55568E5CCC for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 02:53:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ea0-f173.google.com with SMTP id g15so7441815eak.18 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 02:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130612224451.GJ32648@cantiga.alporthouse.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 , Ben Widawsky , Mika Kuoppala , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, miku@iki.fi List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org 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 > > > > > 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 > > > > 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