On 04/20/2015 12:43 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 09:07:28AM -0700, Yu Dai wrote:
>
>
> On 04/18/2015 06:48 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:21:13PM -0700, yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> >> index de8c074..8f13e80 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> >> @@ -1993,7 +1993,7 @@ static int intel_init_ring_buffer(struct drm_device *dev,
> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->request_list);
> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ring->execlist_queue);
> >> i915_gem_batch_pool_init(dev, &ring->batch_pool);
> >> - ringbuf->size = 32 * PAGE_SIZE;
> >> + ringbuf->size = 4 * PAGE_SIZE;
> >> ringbuf->ring = ring;
> >> memset(ring->semaphore.sync_seqno, 0, sizeof(ring->semaphore.sync_seqno));
> >
> >NAK.
> >
> First of all, GuC firmware reserves limited bits for ring buffer. 4
> pages is max for now. Second, considering the ring buffer is
> per-context now, there is no need to allocate 32 pages for it.
Please look at which function you are changing and explain how this is
not in the least broken.
You are right, Chris. I should not touch this legacy ringbuf submission.
Thanks for catch this.
Thanks,
Alex
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
