On 27/10/15 18:58, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
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.
Right, so one WARN eliminated, one to go. :)
Vivek would you have the time to add a new test case which will hit a
WARN in i915_gem_object_unpin_fence with the v2 of your patch and post a
v3 which fixes it?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
