On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:46:30AM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ke, 2016-07-27 at 12:14 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Move the single line to the callsite as the name is now misleading, and
> > the purpose is solely to add the request to the execution queue.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 9 +--------
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > index 0593ea3ba211..63984c4d8e5a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > @@ -1211,13 +1211,6 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer_move_to_active(struct list_head *vmas,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -static void
> > -i915_gem_execbuffer_retire_commands(struct i915_execbuffer_params *params)
> > -{
> > - /* Add a breadcrumb for the completion of the batch buffer */
> > - __i915_add_request(params->request, params->batch_obj, true);
> > -}
> > -
> > static int
> > i915_reset_gen7_sol_offsets(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> > {
> > @@ -1692,7 +1685,7 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> >
> > ret = execbuf_submit(params, args, &eb->vmas);
> > err_request:
> > - i915_gem_execbuffer_retire_commands(params);
> > + __i915_add_request(params->request, params->batch_obj, ret == 0);
>
> This adds a new behavior of no flushing if execbuf fails to submit, I
> guess it is intentional? Do mention in the commit message.
Yes, if we fail to actually emit the execbuf, we don't need to emit
the flush afterwards as we don't perform any rendering. Later on we will
be in a position to detect a request that doesn't do anything and is not
observed and unwind it.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
