On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:53:25PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 25/07/16 08:44, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >If we rewrite the I915_WRITE_TAIL specialisation for the legacy
> >ringbuffer as submitting the request onto the ringbuffer, we can unify
> >the vfunc with both execlists and GuC in the next patch.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c | 8 ++---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++----------------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 3 +-
> > 4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> >index 1c185e293bf0..8814e9c5266b 100644
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> >@@ -467,15 +467,13 @@ void __i915_add_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request,
> > */
> > request->postfix = ring->tail;
> >
> >- if (i915.enable_execlists) {
> >+ if (i915.enable_execlists)
> > ret = engine->emit_request(request);
> >- } else {
> >+ else
> > ret = engine->add_request(request);
> >-
> >- request->tail = ring->tail;
> >- }
> > /* Not allowed to fail! */
> > WARN(ret, "emit|add_request failed: %d!\n", ret);
> >+
> > /* Sanity check that the reserved size was large enough. */
> > ret = ring->tail - request_start;
> > if (ret < 0)
> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >index 567d94de3300..250edb2bcef7 100644
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >@@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ static void execlists_update_context(struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq)
> > struct i915_hw_ppgtt *ppgtt = rq->ctx->ppgtt;
> > uint32_t *reg_state = rq->ctx->engine[engine->id].lrc_reg_state;
> >
> >- reg_state[CTX_RING_TAIL+1] = rq->tail;
> >+ reg_state[CTX_RING_TAIL+1] = rq->tail % (rq->ring->size - 1);
>
> mod ringsize-1 ?
>
> Surely tail % ringsize, or tail & (ringsize-1).
>
> But it's redundant anyway, rq->tail cannot exceed ring->size,
> so the original code was correct.
No, rq->tail can be equal to ring->size which leads to a GPU hang.
(Observed on the older gen at least, I'd rather have the same paranoia
here.)
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
