On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 01:47:12PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > On 2023-03-06 21:58, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 09:23:50PM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> Hey, > >> > >> On 2023-03-06 16:23, Souza, Jose wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2023-03-06 at 15:16 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >>>> As a fallback if we decide not to merge the frontbuffer tracking, allow > >>>> i915 to keep its own implementation, and do the right thing in Xe. > >>>> > >>>> The frontbuffer tracking for Xe is still done per-fb, while i915 can > >>>> keep doing the weird intel_frontbuffer + i915_active thing without > >>>> blocking Xe. > >>> Please also disable PSR and FBC with this or at least add a way for users to disable those features. > >>> Without frontbuffer tracker those two features will break in some cases. > >> FBC and PSR work completely as expected. I don't remove frontbuffer > >> tracking; I only remove the GEM parts. > >> > >> Explicit invalidation using pageflip or CPU rendering + DirtyFB continue > >> to work, as I validated on my laptop with FBC. > > Neither of which are relevant to the removal of the gem hooks. > > > > Like I already said ~10 times in the last meeting, we need a proper > > testcase. Here's a rough idea what it should do: > > > > prepare a batch with > > 1. spinner > > 2. something that clobbers the fb > > > > Then > > 1. grab reference crc > > 2. execbuffer > > 3. dirtyfb > > 4. wait long enough for fbc to recompress > > 5. terminate spinner > > 6. gem_sync > > 7. grab crc and compare with reference > > > > No idea what the current status of PSR+CRC is, so not sure > > whether we can actually test PSR or not. > > This test doesn't make sense. DirtyFB should simply not return before > execbuffer finishes. Of course it should. It's not a blocking ioctl, and can't be because that will make X unusable. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel
