Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:57:04 -0400 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] intel-agp.c: Fix crash when accessing nonexistent GTT entries in i915 |
| |
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:30:20 +0100 Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On 2010.03.20 14:04:56 +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Andrew Morton > >> <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:54:26 +0100 > >> > Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Attached dmesg, lspci -vv, config and xorg. > >> >> > >> >> When the X server crashes, the kernel does not report anything > >> > > >> > This seems to have gone all quiet? > >> > >> It seems so, I was about to ping Zhenyu. > > > > Could you try recent X.org intel driver release? Your failure X log > > showed some pretty old UMS driver's render flush time out message, > > I think whose version never has been well tested with new kms/gem stuff. > > > > Sure. Debian Stable got version 2.3. > > >> > >> > > >> > As this was a 2.6.32->2.6.32.4 regression, I assume that it's also a > >> > 2.6.32->2.6.33 regression? > >> > >> Yep. All kernels I tested since 2.6.32.4 crash, including 2.6.32.10, > >> 2.6.33 and 2.6.34-rc1. See my original message for more details about > >> the crash. > >> > > > > Could you bisect? I doubt it's caused by David's patch, as if it is, you > > will have trouble at early agp init time, instead of current problem looks > > like something causing rendering hang..and I can't think of how mapping GTT > > to a scratch page could cause problem in case GTT bar is truely 256K. > > I bisected in order to find the commit 5877960869333e42ebeb733e8d9d5630ff96d350.
I have no 5877960869333e42ebeb733e8d9d5630ff96d350 here. This is why we ask that people always identify patches by both the hash and the full title..
> I don't know if such commit is really the true problem (does not seem > so if you are right); however, it is the commit that breaks the X > server as I stated in the original message.
| |