On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 06:47:19PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 08:35:36PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 06:03:52PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 02:26:55PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > > > > > On 27/10/15 13:48, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:34:44PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>On 27/10/15 12:51, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > >>>On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:23:26PM -0700, Vivek Kasireddy wrote: > > > > >>>>While pinning a fb object to the display plane, only install a fence > > > > >>>>if the object is using a normal view. This corresponds with the > > > > >>>>behavior found in i915_gem_object_do_pin() where the fencability > > > > >>>>criteria is determined only for objects with normal views. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>v2: > > > > >>>>Look at the object's map_and_fenceable flag to determine whether to > > > > >>>>install a fence or not (Chris). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >>>>Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > >>>>Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> > > > > >>>>Signed-off-by: Vivek Kasireddy <vivek.kasireddy@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > >>>>--- > > > > >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 3 ++- > > > > >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > >>>>index 52fb3f2..108c000 100644 > > > > >>>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > >>>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > > > > >>>>@@ -2357,7 +2357,8 @@ intel_pin_and_fence_fb_obj(struct drm_plane *plane, > > > > >>>> * framebuffer compression. For simplicity, we always install > > > > >>>> * a fence as the cost is not that onerous. > > > > >>>> */ > > > > >>>>- ret = i915_gem_object_get_fence(obj); > > > > >>>>+ if (obj->map_and_fenceable) > > > > >>> > > > > >>>This will now get the fence and pin it for the 90/270 view as well, > > > > >>>even though the fence doesn't even cover that particualr gtt mapping. > > > > >> > > > > >>I don't follow. obj->map_and_fenceable will be true only when normal > > > > >>view exists, so this avoids setting up the fence when no normal view > > > > >>exists and so avoids the WARN_ON in i915_gem_object_get_fence. > > > > > > > > > >Sure, but it's pointless to use up a fence if all we care about > > > > >is the 90/270 mapping. > > > > > > > > After a brief IRC discussion we agreed that the patch doesn't > > > > introduce any new negative behaviours. > > > > > > Urm, consider > > > > > > intel_unpin_fb_obj(): > > > ... > > > i915_gem_object_unpin_fence(intel_fb_obj(obj)); > > > > We'll have (pointlessly) pinned the fence too, so I think it'll end up > > working. I would have just put in view==NORMAL checks myself as an > > interim solution to avoid that, but whatever. > > No, it didn't. If we rotated first, we don't get a fence and so don't > pin it. Then we attach an unrotated, grab a fence and pin it. Then we > end up unpinning twice vs a single pin. Oh, map_and_fenceable on the _object_ depends whether the normal view is bound, and yeah it could get bound only after the rotated view got used for scanout. So view==NORMAL for now seems like good enough solution for now to me. Anything else means a bigger rework of the code, and I for one don't want to got there until I've managed to land my already pending stuff. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
