From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jani Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Make wait-for-pending-flips more defensive Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:49:07 +0300 Message-ID: <87k35vlbd8.fsf@intel.com> References: <1408536814-12974-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D61D6E4BE for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:49:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1408536814-12974-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Chris Wilson , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Chris Wilson wrote: > Be sure to always flush a stuck pageflip even if we couldn't possibly > expect one to be there. > > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82612 > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 12 +++++------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index a7582a46e82e..5898e7157c4c 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -3359,11 +3359,7 @@ void intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips(struct drm_crtc *crtc) > struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev; > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > > - if (crtc->primary->fb == NULL) > - return; > - > WARN_ON(waitqueue_active(&dev_priv->pending_flip_queue)); > - > if (WARN_ON(wait_event_timeout(dev_priv->pending_flip_queue, > !intel_crtc_has_pending_flip(crtc), > 60*HZ) == 0)) { > @@ -3378,9 +3374,11 @@ void intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips(struct drm_crtc *crtc) > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->event_lock, flags); > } Chris, the patch context has changed above, in fact I can't find such context anywhere. Is the patch otherwise valid against current -fixes? BR, Jani. > > - mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > - intel_finish_fb(crtc->primary->fb); > - mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > + if (crtc->primary->fb) { > + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > + intel_finish_fb(crtc->primary->fb); > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > + } > } > > /* Program iCLKIP clock to the desired frequency */ > -- > 2.1.0.rc1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center