Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2019-08-20 15:25:50)
> 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.
It completely escaped me and I had the reason to make sure this worked
with multiple threads!
Thanks for the review,
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
