On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:36:35PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 06:27:12PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:41:05PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > if (!needs_clflush_after &&
> > > obj->base.write_domain != I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {
> > > - i915_gem_clflush_object(obj);
> > > + i915_gem_clflush_object(obj, false);
> >
> > Shouldn't that be i915_gem_clflush_object(obj, obj->pin_display) ?
>
> !needs_clflush_after implies that we cache-coherent and not writing to a
> scanout, so obj->pin_display must be false here.
But we dropped the lock in the slow path, so couldn't it have changed?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
