On 02/07/2014 19:29, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:24:07 +0100
[email protected] wrote:
From: John Harrison <[email protected]>
The scheduler needs to explicitly allocate a seqno to track each submitted batch
buffer. This must happen a long time before any commands are actually written to
the ring.
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 5 +++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
index ee836a6..ec274ef 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
@@ -1317,6 +1317,11 @@ i915_gem_do_execbuffer(struct drm_device *dev, void
*data,
vma->bind_vma(vma, batch_obj->cache_level, GLOBAL_BIND);
}
+ /* Allocate a seqno for this batch buffer nice and early. */
+ ret = intel_ring_alloc_seqno(ring);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err;
+
if (flags & I915_DISPATCH_SECURE)
exec_start += i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(batch_obj);
else
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
index 34d6d6e..737c41b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
@@ -1662,7 +1662,7 @@ int intel_ring_idle(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
return i915_wait_seqno(ring, seqno);
}
-static int
+int
intel_ring_alloc_seqno(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
{
if (ring->outstanding_lazy_seqno)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
index 30841ea..cc92de2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@ void intel_cleanup_ring_buffer(struct intel_engine_cs
*ring);
int __must_check intel_ring_begin(struct intel_engine_cs *ring, int n);
int __must_check intel_ring_cacheline_align(struct intel_engine_cs *ring);
+int __must_check intel_ring_alloc_seqno(struct intel_engine_cs *ring);
static inline void intel_ring_emit(struct intel_engine_cs *ring,
u32 data)
{
This ought to be ok even w/o the scheduler, we'll just pick up the
lazy_seqno later on rather than allocating a new one at ring_begin
right?
Reviewed-by: Jesse Barnes <[email protected]>
Yes. The early allocation is completely benign.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
