Re: [Intel-gfx] Major 2.6.38 / 2.6.39 regression ignored?

[Kirill Smelkov]

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 05:19:20PM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Hello Chris, everyone,
> 
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 04:40:17PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 May 2011 11:23:53 -0400, "Luke-Jr" <luke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:41:45 AM Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 20 May 2011 11:08:56 -0700, Ray Lee <ray-lk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > [ Adding Chris Wilson (author of the problematic patch) and Rafael
> > > > > Wysocki to the message ]
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > I submitted https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33662 a month
> > > > > > ago against 2.6.38. Now 2.6.39 was just released without the
> > > > > > regression being addressed. This bug makes the system unusable... Some
> > > > > > guys on IRC suggested I
> > > > > > email, so here it is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > See the bugzilla entry for the bisection history.
> > > > 
> > > > Which has nothing to do with Luke's bug. Considering the thousand things
> > > > that can go wrong during X starting, without a hint as to which it is nigh
> > > > on impossible to debug except by trial and error. If you set up
> > > > netconsole, does the kernel emit an OOPS with it's last dying breath?
> > > 
> > > Why assume it's a different bug? I would almost wonder if it might affect 
> > > all Sandy Bridge GPUs. In any case, I no longer have the original 
> > > motherboard (it was recalled, as I said in the first post), nor even the 
> > > revision of it (it had other issues that weren't being fixed). I *assume* I 
> > > will have the same problem with my new motherboard (Intel DQ67SW), but I 
> > > haven't verified that yet. I'll be sure to try a netconsole when I have to 
> > > reboot next and get a chance to try the most recent 2.6.38 and .39 kernels, 
> > > but at the moment it seems reasonable to address the problem bisected in the 
> > > bug, even if it turns out to be different.
> > 
> > The bisection is into an old DRI1 bug on 945GM. That DRI has inadequate
> > locking between release and IRQ and so is prone to such races as befell
> > Kirill should not surprise anyone. As neither UMS nor DRI supported SNB,
> > I can quite confidently state they are separate bugs.
> > -Chris
> 
> I see DRI1 is maybe buggy and old, but still, pre-kms X used to work ok
> on kernels < 2.6.38, and starting from 2.6.38 the system is just
> unusable because X either crashes the kernel (2.6.38), or does not start
> at all (2.6.39):
> 
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36052
> 
> 
> It's a regression. It's blocking me to upgrade to newer kernels. I've
> done my homework -- digged it and came with detailed OOPS on netconsole
> and bisected to single commit. Could this please be fixed?

Silence...

Still, reverting the bisected patch helps even for 3.0:

https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36052#c4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/