On Mon, 2023-09-04 at 08:40 +0000, Hogander, Jouni wrote: > On Mon, 2023-09-04 at 07:25 +0000, Coelho, Luciano wrote: > > Hi Jouni, > > > > On Fri, 2023-09-01 at 12:34 +0300, Jouni Högander wrote: > > > We are planning to move flush performed from work queue. This > > > means it is possible to have invalidate -> flip -> flush sequence. > > > Handle this by clearing possible busy bits on flip. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Jouni Högander <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c | 6 ++---- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c > > > index 1c6d467cec26..817e5784660b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c > > > @@ -1307,11 +1307,9 @@ static void __intel_fbc_post_update(struct > > > intel_fbc *fbc) > > > lockdep_assert_held(&fbc->lock); > > > > > > fbc->flip_pending = false; > > > + fbc->busy_bits = 0; > > > > > > - if (!fbc->busy_bits) > > > - intel_fbc_activate(fbc); > > > - else > > > - intel_fbc_deactivate(fbc, "frontbuffer write"); > > > + intel_fbc_activate(fbc); > > > > Can you explain why the call to intel_fbc_deactivate() is not needed > > here anymore? I think it would be a good idea to explain that in the > > commit message. Or, at least, an explanation about it here, so it's > > documented. ;) > > We are clearing fbc->busy_bits -> I.e. if(!fbc->busy_bits) is always > taken : > > Post plane update is called at the end of the flip. If you consider > case where busy_bits != 0 at this point: it means someone have > initiated frontbuffer write (invalidate) which is not yet completed > (flush from workqueue). That flush pending in workqueue is not valid > anymore as there was a flip and the buffer which was frontbuffer is not > a frontbuffer anymore. Even if the same buffer would be used when doing > a flip the atomic commit would take care of flushing the buffer towards > fbc. Also waiting for dma fences is take caren by the atomic commit > code. Thanks for the explanation! It makes sense. So you have my: Reviewed-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> -- Cheers, Luca.
