On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:21:42AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> So it seems that the patch got pulled into v5.6 and has been backported
> to v5.5 but not v5.4.
You're right, that's my mistake.
> In doing that zeroing of ring->vaddr is removed so the test to do mdelay(1)
> and "ring->vaddr = NULL;" is not correct.
I'm not so sure about this. Look at where `ring->vaddr` is assigned:
-------------------------------------8<-----------------------------------------
ret = i915_vma_pin(vma, 0, 0, flags);
if (unlikely(ret))
goto err_unpin;
if (i915_vma_is_map_and_fenceable(vma))
addr = (void __force *)i915_vma_pin_iomap(vma);
else
addr = i915_gem_object_pin_map(vma->obj,
i915_coherent_map_type(vma->vm->i915));
if (IS_ERR(addr)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(addr);
goto err_ring;
}
i915_vma_make_unshrinkable(vma);
/* Discard any unused bytes beyond that submitted to hw. */
intel_ring_reset(ring, ring->emit);
ring->vaddr = addr;
------------------------------------->8-----------------------------------------
And then the converse of that is done *before* my reproducer patch does
`ring->vaddr = NULL;`:
-------------------------------------8<-----------------------------------------
i915_vma_unset_ggtt_write(vma);
if (i915_vma_is_map_and_fenceable(vma))
i915_vma_unpin_iomap(vma);
else
i915_gem_object_unpin_map(vma->obj);
/* mdelay(1);
ring->vaddr = NULL; */
i915_vma_make_purgeable(vma);
i915_vma_unpin(vma);
------------------------------------->8-----------------------------------------
Isn't the value assigned to `ring->vaddr` trashed by those function calls above
where I've got the mdelay? If so, why would it be correct to let the stale value
sit in `ring->vaddr`?
My interpretation of the zeroing of ring->vaddr being removed by Chris was that
it was an unnecessary step before the ring was getting discarded anyway.
Sultan
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
