On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 05:44:40PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 29/06/15 12:39, Jani Nikula wrote: > >> On Wed, 06 May 2015, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 01:54:41PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote: > >>>> On 29/04/15 17:10, yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>>>> From: Alex Dai <yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> > >>>>> This is to avoid bad IO access caused by writing NOOP to wrap the > >>>>> ring buffer whilst ring is unpinned. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Dai <yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 6 +++--- > >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > >>>>> index 732fd63..3e8fcfd 100644 > >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > >>>>> @@ -803,12 +803,12 @@ static int intel_logical_ring_begin(struct intel_ringbuffer *ringbuf, > >>>>> if (ret) > >>>>> return ret; > >>>>> > >>>>> - ret = logical_ring_prepare(ringbuf, ctx, num_dwords * sizeof(uint32_t)); > >>>>> + /* Preallocate the olr before touching the ring */ > >>>>> + ret = i915_gem_request_alloc(ring, ctx); > >>>>> if (ret) > >>>>> return ret; > >>>>> > >>>>> - /* Preallocate the olr before touching the ring */ > >>>>> - ret = i915_gem_request_alloc(ring, ctx); > >>>>> + ret = logical_ring_prepare(ringbuf, ctx, num_dwords * sizeof(uint32_t)); > >>>>> if (ret) > >>>>> return ret; > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> with input also from John Harrison <john.c.harrison@xxxxxxxxx>, who > >>>> would like to point out that this will be superceded by the Anti-OLR > >>>> patches already posted. (In that model, the request will be allocated > >>>> much earlier, and passed around explicitly rather than dangling from the > >>>> context). > >>> > >>> Do we need this for execlist in general, i.e. cc: stable? Where's the bug > >>> report/igt testcase? > >>> > >>> For serious-looking bugs please add more details like that to the commit > >>> message, otherwise maintainers have no idea where to apply a patch. > >> > >> And due to no reply, the maintainers have forgotten about patches like > >> this. Dropping from my fixes queue. > >> > >> BR, > >> Jani. > > > > This became obsolete with the merge of John Harrison's patchset > > "Remove the outstanding_lazy_request" > > Thanks. It only became obsolete for dinq/4.3, I think we still need this for any other kernels shipping with execlist. Dave, can you please confirm? I tried to digg out when exactly we enabled execlist, but there's a module options loop and so I got lost in the recursion ... -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
