From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Sep 2 00:06:41 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 428F69C7926 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 00:06:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-x234.google.com (mail-ob0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05ED8FF; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 00:06:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: by obcts10 with SMTP id ts10so8377349obc.1; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 17:06:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=n/cbFsjsEscfn+hYtVM+9+Qu0Y4WiombnrkJbUjeO04=; b=t8JkWQHqmOwqGqzv0ps7FKXkvuZnrqtoMMj6DGXvFYOAIx16wG8G67OpRog2iFbL/6 L5d/gjHCC6fq1kUSfpuieWxYbAFC1cZdQD/37CeP3VDYk9oZpdtDifQ2p68jc2AaGFfa gk33vh2aYRmQ2rEhbEQTFhXRxDT3bqXhuYpLD9zx7uQaChJnKh3P0Pql+r/m6/5gBKs9 g57ssJF8GWVLtWNGdkxUmfQ0nPRB/vJA+nrvBe8ygcg2HJW9mvCgLxjnjtS4/+Gw0UAX DKqpRqfpE7T8HfCOVxgjECqeIkSrewM/mG7VU9P4LsBStwCuQaXBTD9hJ32Bb+rkFeKO vXCw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.230.234 with SMTP id tb10mr19917675obc.23.1441152400317; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 17:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.202.102.9 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:06:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <55E212F9.6010908@yandex.ru> <20150830130604.GN3158@zxy.spb.ru> <20150830175039.GO3158@zxy.spb.ru> <55E35257.9030201@yandex.ru> <20150830191739.GZ21849@zxy.spb.ru> <55E36EAE.60606@yandex.ru> <20150830212540.GA21849@zxy.spb.ru> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 17:06:40 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: muCzt2rUnV5dgYXpcxwIFNjgNyg Message-ID: Subject: Re: [drm:i915_gem_object_unbind] *ERROR* Attempting to unbind pinned buffer From: Kevin Oberman To: Adrian Chadd Cc: Slawa Olhovchenkov , Ruslan Makhmatkhanov , FreeBSD Current Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 00:06:41 -0000 On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi, > > has anyone asked dumbbell directly about it? > > > > -a > > > On 30 August 2015 at 14:25, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 11:59:26PM +0300, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote: > > > >> Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote on 08/30/2015 22:17: > >> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 09:58:31PM +0300, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote: > >> > >> >> No doubt that this is not the root cause, but frankly I haven't that > >> >> "GPU hung" messages in my system. I have others like this one > triggered > >> >> on shutdown: > >> >> error: [drm:pid1041:intel_lvds_enable] *ERROR* timed out waiting for > >> >> panel to power off > >> >> > >> >> And this one spamming almost with the same frequency as "pinned > buffer": > >> >> error: [drm:pid1016:gen6_sanitize_pm] *ERROR* Power management > >> >> discrepancy: GEN6_RP_INTERRUPT_LIMITS expected 000d0000, was 180d0000 > >> >> > >> >> But I had not investigated that yet and not sure they are related. > >> >> It's on r287029 head. > >> > > >> > All of this related to import new DRI/DRM code and such code in Linux > >> > have same problems. > >> > r282141 in stable related to r279599 and r275209 in current. > >> > Can you try to revert r279599? > >> > >> You are right. After reverting r279599 two of this messages ("timed out > >> waiting for panel to power off" and "unbind pinned buffer") disappeared, > >> while "Power management discrepancy" is still there. Should I try to > >> revert r275209 too? > > > > I think r275209 is not relevant here. > > This thread has been quiet of late and seems to be an annoyance that a real problem. I would like to suggest that it might belong on x11@ rather than current@. I see the same issue on stable and first saw it in late March after the MFC of r280369 which incorporated r277487, r277959, r278146-278148, r278152 and r278159.These are all older than the commits suggested. r277487 was the primary commit to head. I reported this to x11@ back on April 1, but when I went a day with no errors, I sent a note that it was transient and had disappeared on April 9. Clearly I was too quick on the draw as the messages reappeared in a day or two, but I never got around to following up. -- Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683