-
由 Daniel Vetter 提交于
So don't return -EAGAIN, even in the case of a gpu hang. Remap it to -EIO instead. Note that this isn't really an issue with interruptability, but more that we have quite a few codepaths (mostly around kms stuff) that simply can't handle any errors and hence not even -EAGAIN. Instead of adding proper failure paths so that we could restart these ioctls we've opted for the cheap way out of sleeping non-interruptibly. Which works everywhere but when the gpu dies, which this patch fixes. So essentially interruptible == false means 'wait for the gpu or die trying'.' This patch is a bit ugly because intel_ring_begin is all non-interruptible and hence only returns -EIO. But as the comment in there says, auditing all the callsites would be a pain. To avoid duplicating code, reuse i915_gem_check_wedge in __wait_seqno and intel_wait_ring_buffer. Also use the opportunity to clarify the different cases in i915_gem_check_wedge a bit with comments. v2: Don't access dev_priv->mm.interruptible from check_wedge - we might not hold dev->struct_mutex, making this racy. Instead pass interruptible in as a parameter. I've noticed this because I've hit a BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked) at the top of check_wedge. This has been added in commit b4aca010 Author: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> Date: Wed Apr 25 20:50:12 2012 -0700 drm/i915: extract some common olr+wedge code although that commit is missing any justification for this. I guess it's just copy&paste, because the same commit add the same BUG_ON check to check_olr, where it indeed makes sense. But in check_wedge everything we access is protected by other means, so this is superflous. And because it now gets in the way (we add a new caller in __wait_seqno, which can be called without dev->struct_mutext) let's just remove it. v3: Group all the i915_gem_check_wedge refactoring into this patch, so that this patch here is all about not returning -EAGAIN to callsites that can't handle syscall restarting. v4: Add clarification what interuptible == fales means in our code, requested by Ben Widawsky. v5: Fix EAGAIN mispell noticed by Chris Wilson. Reviewed-by: NBen Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> Reviewed-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Tested-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Signed-Off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
d6b2c790