On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:28:26AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 06:18:52PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 09:54:33AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > The initial implementation of this function used MMIO to write the PDPs.
> > > Upon review it was determined (correctly) that the docs say to use LRI.
> > > The issue is there are times where we want to do a synchronous write
> > > (GPU reset).
> > >
> > > I've tested this, and it works. I've verified with as many people as
> > > possible that it should work.
> > >
> > > This should fix the failing reset problems.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> > > index 1a5272c..96dbf3d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
> > > @@ -197,12 +197,19 @@ static gen6_gtt_pte_t iris_pte_encode(dma_addr_t addr,
> > >
> > > /* Broadwell Page Directory Pointer Descriptors */
> > > static int gen8_write_pdp(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring, unsigned entry,
> > > - uint64_t val)
> > > + uint64_t val, bool synchronous)
> > > {
> > > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = ring->dev->dev_private;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> >
> > i915_reset_in_progress(&dev_priv->gpu_error));
> > doesn't actually mean that we are in the middle of a reset. Or does
> > it? Anyway intel_ring_begin() returns EIO/EAGAIN so we do not need
> > to pass down the parameter. But the issue with mixing and matching LRI
> > vs mmio is that if this was not a reset call, then we just upset the
> > GPU even further.
> > -Chris
>
> /me sighs
>
> The synchronous argument comes from the future. There are
> three places where one could conceivably use it:
> 1. before rings are up
> 2. during hang
> 3. after rings are shut down
>
> With the current code, only #2 is actually possible. I don't like
> checking EIO/EAGAIN as there are cases where we expect failure, and
> cases where we do not. Being able to strain out which one is which, is
> helpful, and [in the future] the caller is the one that can take
> appropriate action. Also I found also using the argument a bit nicer
> since every gen would have to implement the same logic to determine if
> the rings were usage.
>
> You'll have to trust me that I won't use MMIO when I shouldn't be using
> it.
>
> I can understand your comment at this stage, but I hope my reasoning
> makes sense. (Feel free to view my ppgtt branch if you'd like)
Sure having a parameter will be useful to do other things, I am just not
convinced that what you want to do in this patch is sane. Currently, we
only call ->enable in i915_gem_init_hw(), so what you do here could
work. But presumably, with full-ppgtt it will then be possible to call
between resets making us vulnerable to weird races?
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
