Op 10-11-15 om 13:20 schreef Zanoni, Paulo R: > Em Ter, 2015-11-10 às 11:22 +0100, Maarten Lankhorst escreveu: >> Op 04-11-15 om 20:10 schreef Paulo Zanoni: >>> In function find_compression_threshold() we try to over-allocate >>> CFB >>> space in order to reudce reallocations and fragmentation, and we're >>> not considering that at the CFB size check. Consider it. >>> >>> There is also a longer-term plan to kill >>> dev_priv->fbc.uncompressed_size, but this will come later. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c >>> index dee99c9..e99aacc 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c >>> @@ -719,7 +719,8 @@ static int intel_fbc_setup_cfb(struct >>> intel_crtc *crtc) >>> size = intel_fbc_calculate_cfb_size(crtc); >>> cpp = drm_format_plane_cpp(fb->pixel_format, 0); >>> >>> - if (size <= dev_priv->fbc.uncompressed_size) >>> + if (dev_priv->fbc.compressed_fb.allocated && >>> + size <= dev_priv->fbc.compressed_fb.size * dev_priv- >>>> fbc.threshold) >>> return 0; >>> >>> /* Release any current block */ >> Should i8xx_fbc_enable be changed too then? > As far as I understand, no. We're just reserving a bigger buffer in > case we need it later, but the size used by the hardware is still the > same. But I'm not 100% sure the i8xx code is actually correct since I > didn't dig deep into the ancient scrolls. By not touching i8xx we're > also avoiding a possible new regression. > The original check was for size <= uncompressed_size, new is threshold * compressed. I think i8xx_fbc_enable might have to do the same when calculating cfb_pitch for this patch to work as intended. ~Maarten _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
