On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 04:19:00PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 02:44:48PM +0200, Juha-Pekka Heikkila wrote: > > intel_adjusted_rate() didn't take into account src rectangle > > can be less than 1 in width or height. > > This should not get called in those cases. What does the > backtrace look like? In my repro of this issue, the backtrace looks as follows: [ 180.798331] RIP: 0010:intel_plane_pixel_rate+0x4a/0x53 [ 180.798336] Code: <snip long line> [ 180.798338] RSP: 0018:ffffb080ce4179b8 EFLAGS: 00010246 [ 180.798341] RAX: ffffffffffffffff RBX: ffff98cd22a24000 RCX: 0000000000000a00 [ 180.798343] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffff98cccbae7000 RDI: 0000000000000000 [ 180.798346] RBP: ffffb080ce4179b8 R08: 0000000000087780 R09: 0000000000000002 [ 180.798348] R10: 0000000000000a00 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000000 [ 180.798350] R13: ffff98cd0e495400 R14: ffff98ccc34e0000 R15: ffff98cccbae7000 [ 180.798352] FS: 00007b84119b5000(0000) GS:ffff98d02f900000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 180.798354] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 180.798357] CR2: 00007ffc2d5e4080 CR3: 00000001042ee006 CR4: 0000000000770ee0 [ 180.798359] PKRU: 55555554 [ 180.798361] Call Trace: [ 180.798364] <TASK> [ 180.798366] intel_plane_atomic_check_with_state+0x1fd/0x6ea [ 180.798370] ? intel_plane_atomic_check+0x11b/0x145 [ 180.798373] intel_atomic_check_planes+0x263/0x7ce [ 180.798376] ? drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset+0x189/0x923 [ 180.798380] intel_atomic_check+0x14e4/0x184d [ 180.798382] ? intel_rps_mark_interactive+0x23/0x6a [ 180.798386] drm_atomic_check_only+0x3ec/0x98f [ 180.798391] drm_atomic_commit+0xa2/0x105 [ 180.798394] ? drm_atomic_set_fb_for_plane+0x96/0xa5 [ 180.798397] drm_atomic_helper_update_plane+0xdc/0x11f [ 180.798400] drm_mode_setplane+0x236/0x30c [ 180.798404] ? drm_any_plane_has_format+0x51/0x51 [ 180.798407] drm_ioctl_kernel+0xda/0x14d [ 180.798411] drm_ioctl+0x27e/0x3b4 [ 180.798414] ? drm_any_plane_has_format+0x51/0x51 [ 180.798418] __se_sys_ioctl+0x7a/0xbc [ 180.798421] do_syscall_64+0x55/0x9d [ 180.798424] ? exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x3c/0x8b [ 180.798427] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xcb If this function shouldn't be called in such a case, then perhaps I should revist my original attempt at fixing this in https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/516060 by rejecting such a configuration? I'll respond to Alan on that thread. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Juha-Pekka Heikkila <juhapekka.heikkila@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c | 8 +++++--- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c > > index 10e1fc9d0698..a9948e8d3543 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_atomic_plane.c > > @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ unsigned int intel_adjusted_rate(const struct drm_rect *src, > > const struct drm_rect *dst, > > unsigned int rate) > > { > > - unsigned int src_w, src_h, dst_w, dst_h; > > + unsigned int src_w, src_h, dst_w, dst_h, dst_wh; > > > > src_w = drm_rect_width(src) >> 16; > > src_h = drm_rect_height(src) >> 16; > > @@ -155,8 +155,10 @@ unsigned int intel_adjusted_rate(const struct drm_rect *src, > > dst_w = min(src_w, dst_w); > > dst_h = min(src_h, dst_h); > > > > - return DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(mul_u32_u32(rate, src_w * src_h), > > - dst_w * dst_h); > > + /* in case src contained only fractional part */ > > + dst_wh = max(dst_w * dst_h, (unsigned) 1); > > + > > + return DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(mul_u32_u32(rate, src_w * src_h), dst_wh); > > } > > > > unsigned int intel_plane_pixel_rate(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state, > > -- > > 2.37.3 > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel
