<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body><span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:martin.peres@free.fr" title="Martin Peres <martin.peres@free.fr>"> <span class="fn">Martin Peres</span></a>
</span> changed
<a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_CLOSED bz_closed"
title="CLOSED WORKSFORME - [CI] igt@gem_wait@wait-default - fail - Failed assertion: wait.timeout_ns > 0"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106125">bug 106125</a>
<br>
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8">
<tr>
<th>What</th>
<th>Removed</th>
<th>Added</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align:right;">Status</td>
<td>RESOLVED
</td>
<td>CLOSED
</td>
</tr></table>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_CLOSED bz_closed"
title="CLOSED WORKSFORME - [CI] igt@gem_wait@wait-default - fail - Failed assertion: wait.timeout_ns > 0"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106125#c6">Comment # 6</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_CLOSED bz_closed"
title="CLOSED WORKSFORME - [CI] igt@gem_wait@wait-default - fail - Failed assertion: wait.timeout_ns > 0"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106125">bug 106125</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:martin.peres@free.fr" title="Martin Peres <martin.peres@free.fr>"> <span class="fn">Martin Peres</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre>(In reply to Chris Wilson from <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=106125#c5">comment #5</a>)
<span class="quote">> Warning be silenced:
>
> commit f772d9a910130b3aec8efa4f09ed723618fae656 (HEAD, upstream/master)
> Author: Chris Wilson <<a href="mailto:chris@chris-wilson.co.uk">chris@chris-wilson.co.uk</a>>
> Date: Wed May 2 12:11:26 2018 +0100
>
> igt/gem_wait: Relax assertion for wait completion
>
> When waiting for a finite batch, all that we require is that the batch
> completes. If it takes the full second (or longer) for us to wake up and
> notice the completed batch is immaterial, so only assert that we don't
> report an infinite timeout afterwards.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <<a href="mailto:chris@chris-wilson.co.uk">chris@chris-wilson.co.uk</a>>
> Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <<a href="mailto:joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com">joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com</a>>
>
> We can still get a timer error if the spin_set_timeout() doesn't fire within
> 1s (target is 0.5s), but we no longer trigger a warning (as in this case)
> when we don't wake up within 1s (due to whatever scheduling latency) but
> have detected the completed batch (or we wouldn't wake up at all... except
> stray signals?)</span >
That makes sense, thanks!
However, is this delay something we would like to reduce for our users? I know
that Linux is not an RTOS, but this 1s before realising a batch buffer has
executed sound terrible, especially since it is something mesa would need.
What's your take on this?</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are on the CC list for the bug.</li>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>