On 23/01/2017 10:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:26:15AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 23/01/2017 08:50, Chris Wilson wrote:
When execlists signals the context completion, it also provides the
context id for the status event. Assert that id matches the one we expect.
v2: The upper dword of the context status is a duplicate of the upper
dword from elsp submission (i.e. includes the group id as well as the
context id). Include this check as well.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
index 432ee495dec2..963b1888d8a0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
@@ -595,6 +595,12 @@ static void intel_lrc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
if (!(status & GEN8_CTX_STATUS_COMPLETED_MASK))
continue;
+ /* Check the context/desc id for this event matches */
+ GEM_BUG_ON(((readl(buf + 2 * idx + 1) & (MAX_CONTEXT_HW_ID-1)) !=
+ port[0].request->ctx->hw_id));
+ GEM_BUG_ON(readl(buf + 2 * idx + 1) !=
+ upper_32_bits(port[0].request->ctx->engine[engine->id].lrc_desc));
+
Not sure that you need the first line since the lrc_desc includes
the hw_id? Or perhaps you don't need the second one since lrc_desc
is built from hw_id? :)
It was defense in depth :)
The first line is certain, that make sure the event matches
port[0].request.
The second line makes sure that everything matches my understanding, and
that lrc_desc is correct (or vice versa).
Too redundant IMO. lrc_desc correctness could/should be asserted
somewhere else, not in the irq handler. I would keep one of them,
probably the assert agains lrc_desc because that's the right layer for
this place.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
