On 28/04/16 09:58, Andreas Lampersperger wrote:
Hi Dave,
thank you again.
I searched, where the memory for the request came from, it is set in line 2158
of i915_gem.c
<https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c?id=refs/tags/v3.14.67#n2158>
and the kmalloc is in intel_ring_alloc_seqno() in intel_ringbuffer.c
<https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c?id=refs/tags/v3.14.67#n1600>,
right?
So I will test the following patch for intel_ringbuffer.c:
intel_ring_alloc_seqno(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring)
{
if (ring->outstanding_lazy_seqno)
return 0;
if (ring->preallocated_lazy_request == NULL) {
struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
request = kmalloc(sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL);
if (request == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
+
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&request->list);
ring->preallocated_lazy_request = request;
}
return i915_gem_get_seqno(ring->dev, &ring->outstanding_lazy_seqno);
}
:
Yes, that looks sensible. Interestingly, that version uses kmalloc()
rather than k*z*alloc, so the uninitialised list head will be random
rather than zeroed. Anything could happen!
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
