Bug#1049404: mesa: gnome-shell crashes when using llvmpipe on mips64el
Source: mesa
Version: 23.1.4-1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-mips@lists.debian.org, wzssyqa@gmail.com
User: debian-mips@lists.debian.org
Usertags: mips64el mipsel
gnome-shell (>= 44) fails its build-time tests on the mips64el porterbox
'eller', using llvmpipe for 3D graphics. I don't know whether a simpler
accelerated 3D application would reproduce the same crash.
According to mips porter YunQiang Su, the same version of
gnome-shell works well on an AMD GPU, so this is an llvmpipe-specific
bug. Unfortunately, llvmpipe is the only thing we have available for
smoke-testing on buildds and other infrastructure.
To reproduce this with a current version of gnome-shell, it will be
necessary to remove this workaround from debian/rules:
ifneq ($(filter mips%,$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU)),)
# gnome-shell on mips(64)el works on a real GPU (in practice usually an
# AMD GPU), but crashes when using llvmpipe or softpipe, which is all that
# is available on the buildds, so we only run the unit tests at build time
# and skip the tests that would run the whole Shell. See discussion in
# https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/71
meson_test_options += --no-suite shell
endif
This might have the same root cause as some or all of #868745, #935884,
#1010838, #993550, #1003348.
YunQiang Su writes:
> on MIPS with MSA, mesa try to use it, and trigger some
> problems. It is still the bug of LLVM. So maybe we should
> revert the changes to mesa before LLVM MSA JIT is fixed.
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/commit/88b234d7a7cd71fcb4955428010f238ec9530431
There is further discussion on
<https://salsa.debian.org/gnome-team/gnome-shell/-/merge_requests/71>.
(Note that there is also discussion there of a different failure with the
softpipe renderer, which is out of scope for this bug report.)
I do not intend to work on this myself: I do not have any mips hardware,
any particular interest in mips, or any Mesa or LLVM expertise.
Thanks,
smcv
Reply to: