Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/i915: Cleanup handling of last_fenced_seqno

Daniel Vetter
2011-03-19T22:55:25Z

A few nitpicks below.

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 5201f82..2dbf8f7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -2461,13 +2461,15 @@ i915_gem_object_flush_fence(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> obj->fenced_gpu_access = false;
> }
>
> + if (obj->last_fenced_seqno &&
> + ring_passed_seqno(obj->ring, obj->last_fenced_seqno))
> + obj->last_fenced_seqno = 0;

This only avoids running the request retiring logic. Without this there are a
few more things to simplify, I think:

> if (obj->last_fenced_seqno && pipelined != obj->ring) {
> - if (!ring_passed_seqno(obj->ring, obj->last_fenced_seqno)) {
> - ret = i915_wait_request(obj->ring,
> - obj->last_fenced_seqno);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> - }
> + ret = i915_wait_request(obj->ring,
> + obj->last_fenced_seqno);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> obj->last_fenced_seqno = 0;

Can't we move that (and the other copies) to move_off_active?

> @@ -2648,15 +2650,18 @@ i915_gem_object_get_fence(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> old->last_fenced_seqno);
> }

Above here is the imo unnecessary clause mentioned in a previous patch.

>
> + obj->last_fenced_seqno = old->last_fenced_seqno;
> drm_gem_object_unreference(&old->base);
> - } else if (obj->last_fenced_seqno == 0)
> - pipelined = NULL;
> + }
>
> reg->obj = obj;
> list_move_tail(&reg->lru_list, &dev_priv->mm.fence_list);
> obj->fence_reg = reg - dev_priv->fence_regs;
>
> update:
> + if (obj->last_fenced_seqno == 0)
> + pipelined = NULL;
> +
> reg->setup_seqno =
> pipelined ? i915_gem_next_request_seqno(pipelined) : 0;
> reg->setup_ring = pipelined;
--
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48