On 12/04/16 16:18, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:32:31PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
When reviewing some of Tvrtko's usage for i915_gem_object_pin_map(), he
suggested replacing some use of kmap(i915_gem_object_get_dirty_page())
with a plain i915_gem_object_pin_map(). This raised the question of who
should mark the page as dirty (or the mapping case, the object).
We can write simpler, safer code if we mark the entire object as dirty
upon obtaining the obj->mapping. (The counter-argument is that the
caller should be marking the object as dirty itself, or we should be
passing in a direction parameter.)
What I particularly dislike about the current obj->dirty is that it is
strictly only valid inside a pin_pages/unpin_pages section. That isn't
clear from the API atm.
-Chris
So, I tried replacing all instances of "obj->dirty = true" with my new
function i915_gem_object_mark_dirty(), and added an assertion that it's
called only when (pages_pin_count > 0) - and found a failure.
Stack is:
i915_gem_object_mark_dirty
i915_gem_object_set_to_gtt_domain
i915_gem_set_domain_ioctl
So is i915_gem_object_set_to_gtt_domain() wrong? It's done a get_pages
but no pin_pages. Also, i915_gem_object_set_to_cpu_domain() doesn't mark
the object dirty in the corresponding if(write) clause - is that also wrong?
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
