Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The current assertion tries to make sure that we do not over count the
> number of used PDE inside a page directory -- that is with an array of
> 512 pde, we do not expect more than 512 elements used! However, our
> assertion has to take into account that as we pin an element into the
> page directory, the caller first pins the page directory so the usage
> count is one higher. However, this should be one extra pin per thread,
> and the upper bound is that we may have one thread for each entry.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> index e48df11a19fb..9435d184ddf2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> @@ -771,7 +771,8 @@ __set_pd_entry(struct i915_page_directory * const pd,
> struct i915_page_dma * const to,
> u64 (*encode)(const dma_addr_t, const enum i915_cache_level))
> {
> - GEM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(px_used(pd)) > ARRAY_SIZE(pd->entry));
> + /* Each thread pre-pins the pd, and we may have a thread per each pde */
> + GEM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(px_used(pd)) > 2 * ARRAY_SIZE(pd->entry));
When I saw +1 wrt array_size that should have rang some bells between
my ears. I did increase it to +1 for the upper pinning but
the parallelism escaped me and no more bells were rung.
from irc 'the upper page directory' could be added to the commit msg
and to the comment to emphasize why this happen leaf like.
Thanks,
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> atomic_inc(px_used(pd));
> pd->entry[idx] = to;
> --
> 2.23.0.rc1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
