Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-11-19 17:41:53)
> Under moderate amounts of GPU stress, we can observe on Bearlake and
> Pineview (later gen3 models) that we execute the following batch buffer
> before the write into the batch is coherent. Adding extra (tested with
> upto 32x) MI_FLUSH to either the invalidation, flush or both phases does
> not solve the incoherency issue with the relocations, but emitting the
> MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM twice does. So be it.
>
> Fixes: 7dd4f6729f92 ("drm/i915: Async GPU relocation processing")
> Testcase: igt/gem_tiled_fence_blits # blb/pnv
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<SNIP>
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> @@ -1268,7 +1268,7 @@ relocate_entry(struct i915_vma *vma,
> else if (gen >= 4)
> len = 4;
> else
> - len = 3;
> + len = 6;
>
> batch = reloc_gpu(eb, vma, len);
> if (IS_ERR(batch))
> @@ -1309,6 +1309,11 @@ relocate_entry(struct i915_vma *vma,
> *batch++ = MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM | MI_MEM_VIRTUAL;
> *batch++ = addr;
> *batch++ = target_offset;
> +
> + /* And again for good measure (blb/pnv) */
> + *batch++ = MI_STORE_DWORD_IMM | MI_MEM_VIRTUAL;
> + *batch++ = addr;
> + *batch++ = target_offset;
I guess you already balanced between for() loop and this, maybe this is
clearer.
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Regards, Joonas
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
