Op 19-10-15 om 15:16 schreef Ander Conselvan De Oliveira:
> On Wed, 2015-09-23 at 13:27 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> Move it from intel_crtc_atomic_commit to prepare_plane_fb.
>> Waiting is done before committing, otherwise it's too late
>> to undo the changes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c | 2 -
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>> -
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 2 -
>> 3 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c
>> index f1975f267710..25a891aa3824 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_atomic.c
>> @@ -205,8 +205,6 @@ int intel_atomic_setup_scalers(struct drm_device *dev,
>> * but since this plane is unchanged just do
>> the
>> * minimum required validation.
>> */
>> - if (plane->type == DRM_PLANE_TYPE_PRIMARY)
>> - intel_crtc->atomic.wait_for_flips =
>> true;
>> crtc_state->base.planes_changed = true;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> index 25e1eac260fd..cd651ff6c15b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
>> @@ -3221,32 +3221,6 @@ void intel_finish_reset(struct drm_device *dev)
>> drm_modeset_unlock_all(dev);
>> }
>>
>> -static void
>> -intel_finish_fb(struct drm_framebuffer *old_fb)
>> -{
>> - struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj = intel_fb_obj(old_fb);
>> - struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(obj->base.dev);
>> - bool was_interruptible = dev_priv->mm.interruptible;
>> - int ret;
>> -
>> - /* Big Hammer, we also need to ensure that any pending
>> - * MI_WAIT_FOR_EVENT inside a user batch buffer on the
>> - * current scanout is retired before unpinning the old
>> - * framebuffer. Note that we rely on userspace rendering
>> - * into the buffer attached to the pipe they are waiting
>> - * on. If not, userspace generates a GPU hang with IPEHR
>> - * point to the MI_WAIT_FOR_EVENT.
>> - *
>> - * This should only fail upon a hung GPU, in which case we
>> - * can safely continue.
>> - */
>> - dev_priv->mm.interruptible = false;
>> - ret = i915_gem_object_wait_rendering(obj, true);
>> - dev_priv->mm.interruptible = was_interruptible;
>> -
>> - WARN_ON(ret);
>> -}
>> -
>> static bool intel_crtc_has_pending_flip(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
>> {
>> struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev;
>> @@ -3867,15 +3841,23 @@ static void page_flip_completed(struct intel_crtc
>> *intel_crtc)
>> work->pending_flip_obj);
>> }
>>
>> -void intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
>> +static int intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
>> {
>> struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev;
>> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>> + long ret;
>>
>> WARN_ON(waitqueue_active(&dev_priv->pending_flip_queue));
>> - if (WARN_ON(wait_event_timeout(dev_priv->pending_flip_queue,
>> - !intel_crtc_has_pending_flip(crtc),
>> - 60*HZ) == 0)) {
>> +
>> + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(
>> + dev_priv->pending_flip_queue,
>> + !intel_crtc_has_pending_flip(crtc),
>> + 60*HZ);
>> +
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + if (ret == 0) {
>> struct intel_crtc *intel_crtc = to_intel_crtc(crtc);
>>
>> spin_lock_irq(&dev->event_lock);
>> @@ -3886,11 +3868,7 @@ void intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips(struct drm_crtc
>> *crtc)
>> spin_unlock_irq(&dev->event_lock);
>> }
>>
>> - if (crtc->primary->fb) {
>> - mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>> - intel_finish_fb(crtc->primary->fb);
>> - mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
>> - }
> There is another caller of intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips() besides the one
> touched in this patch: intel_crtc_disable_noatomic(). In your previous series
> you dropped that call based on the fact that there shouldn't be any pending
> flips at that point, but that patch has been dropped.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to add a WARN_ON as Chris suggested then instead of
> keeping the wait for flips but without the work around?
>
Yeah that would be a good idea. I'll fix up this patch.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
