On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 4.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
The commit to be backported is already reverted in upstream, and I just
got an email from you backporting the revert as well... would be best to
*not* backport either of these:
commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5
Author: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
Date: Thu May 28 18:32:36 2015 +0300
drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty
commit 245ec9d85696c3e539b23e210f248698b478379c
Author: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
Date: Mon Jun 15 12:59:37 2015 +0300
Revert "drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty"
I only marked the revert cc: stable because the original was too.
BR,
Jani.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Ville=20Syrj=C3=A4l=C3=A4?= <[email protected]>
>
> commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5 upstream.
>
> Apparently we can have requests even if though the active list is empty,
> so do the request retirement regardless of whether there's anything
> on the active list.
>
> The way it happened here is that during suspend intel_ring_idle()
> notices the olr hanging around and then proceeds to get rid of it by
> adding a request. However since there was nothing on the active lists
> i915_gem_retire_requests() didn't clean those up, and so the idle work
> never runs, and we leave the GPU "busy" during suspend resulting in a
> WARN later.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -2732,9 +2732,6 @@ void i915_gem_reset(struct drm_device *d
> void
> i915_gem_retire_requests_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
> {
> - if (list_empty(&ring->request_list))
> - return;
> -
> WARN_ON(i915_verify_lists(ring->dev));
>
> /* Retire requests first as we use it above for the early return.
>
>
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29:13AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 4.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> The commit to be backported is already reverted in upstream, and I just
> got an email from you backporting the revert as well... would be best to
> *not* backport either of these:
>
> commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5
> Author: Ville Syrj?l? <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu May 28 18:32:36 2015 +0300
>
> drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty
>
> commit 245ec9d85696c3e539b23e210f248698b478379c
> Author: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
> Date: Mon Jun 15 12:59:37 2015 +0300
>
> Revert "drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty"
>
> I only marked the revert cc: stable because the original was too.
This patch is now in 4.0 so what do I suggest I do? Just take these as
well?
confused,
greg k-h
On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29:13AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > 4.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>
>> The commit to be backported is already reverted in upstream, and I just
>> got an email from you backporting the revert as well... would be best to
>> *not* backport either of these:
>>
>> commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5
>> Author: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
>> Date: Thu May 28 18:32:36 2015 +0300
>>
>> drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty
>>
>> commit 245ec9d85696c3e539b23e210f248698b478379c
>> Author: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
>> Date: Mon Jun 15 12:59:37 2015 +0300
>>
>> Revert "drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty"
>>
>> I only marked the revert cc: stable because the original was too.
>
> This patch is now in 4.0 so what do I suggest I do? Just take these as
> well?
>
> confused,
Sorry for confusing you. Please take neither or take both.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:34:37AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29:13AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > 4.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >>
> >> The commit to be backported is already reverted in upstream, and I just
> >> got an email from you backporting the revert as well... would be best to
> >> *not* backport either of these:
> >>
> >> commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5
> >> Author: Ville Syrj?l? <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Thu May 28 18:32:36 2015 +0300
> >>
> >> drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty
> >>
> >> commit 245ec9d85696c3e539b23e210f248698b478379c
> >> Author: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Mon Jun 15 12:59:37 2015 +0300
> >>
> >> Revert "drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty"
> >>
> >> I only marked the revert cc: stable because the original was too.
> >
> > This patch is now in 4.0 so what do I suggest I do? Just take these as
> > well?
> >
> > confused,
>
> Sorry for confusing you. Please take neither or take both.
So, based on what I have queued up, and what is already released in
4.0-stable, we should be fine, right?
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:34:37AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:29:13AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> > 4.0-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>> >>
>> >> The commit to be backported is already reverted in upstream, and I just
>> >> got an email from you backporting the revert as well... would be best to
>> >> *not* backport either of these:
>> >>
>> >> commit 0aedb1626566efd72b369c01992ee7413c82a0c5
>> >> Author: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]>
>> >> Date: Thu May 28 18:32:36 2015 +0300
>> >>
>> >> drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty
>> >>
>> >> commit 245ec9d85696c3e539b23e210f248698b478379c
>> >> Author: Jani Nikula <[email protected]>
>> >> Date: Mon Jun 15 12:59:37 2015 +0300
>> >>
>> >> Revert "drm/i915: Don't skip request retirement if the active list is empty"
>> >>
>> >> I only marked the revert cc: stable because the original was too.
>> >
>> > This patch is now in 4.0 so what do I suggest I do? Just take these as
>> > well?
>> >
>> > confused,
>>
>> Sorry for confusing you. Please take neither or take both.
>
> So, based on what I have queued up, and what is already released in
> 4.0-stable, we should be fine, right?
Yes. Thanks.
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center