public inbox for intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Wait for pending flips in intel_pipe_set_base()
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 22:21:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121126212128.GF32309@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1352121653-30904-1-git-send-email-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:20:53PM +0200, ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> 
> intel_pipe_set_base() never actually waited for any pending page flips
> on the CRTC. It looks like it tried to, by calling intel_finish_fb() on
> the current front buffer. But the pending flips were actually tracked
> in the BO of the previous front buffer, so the call to intel_finish_fb()
> never did anything useful.
> 
> intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips() is the current _working_ way to wait
> for pending page flips. So use it in intel_pipe_set_base() too. Some
> refactoring was necessary to avoid locking struct_mutex twice.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> v2: Shuffle the code around so that intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips()
>     just wraps intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips_locked().

Sorry for the long delay in looking at this. One bikeshed here: I prefer
the patch changelog before the sob lines so that it gets included in the
commit message - most often it's rather interesting read, especially for
patches that take a few revisions to get right. More substantial comment
below.

>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c |   76 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
>  1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> index 1a38267..a18e6e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c
> @@ -2228,6 +2228,46 @@ static void intel_crtc_update_sarea_pos(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int x, int y)
>  	}
>  }
>  
> +static bool intel_crtc_has_pending_flip(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> +{
> +	struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev;
> +	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	bool pending;
> +
> +	if (atomic_read(&dev_priv->mm.wedged))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->event_lock, flags);
> +	pending = to_intel_crtc(crtc)->unpin_work != NULL;
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->event_lock, flags);
> +
> +	return pending;
> +}
> +
> +static void intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips_locked(struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> +{
> +	struct drm_device *dev = crtc->dev;
> +	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> +
> +	if (crtc->fb == NULL)
> +		return;
> +
> +	wait_event(dev_priv->pending_flip_queue,
> +		   !intel_crtc_has_pending_flip(crtc));

I think we also need to add a dev_priv->mm.wedged check here, since the
gpu might die and never execute the pageflip. Otoh we don't complete any
pageflips that never executed due to a gpu hang, so maybe also add a big
FIXME. But with the wedged check we should at least not hang in an
non-interruptible wait.

The other thing is that the wait_even in finish_fb is not superflous,
since we should never see a framebuffer with pending flips for _this_ crtc
(it could have a pending flip on another crtc). So I think that code in
finish_fb should die, leaving just the comment and the finish_gpu call.

Cheers, Daniel

PS: Testcase would be awesome, but I have no ideas beyond what we already
have in flip_test unfortunately ...
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-11-26 21:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-05 13:20 [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Wait for pending flips in intel_pipe_set_base() ville.syrjala
2012-11-05 15:33 ` Chris Wilson
2012-11-26 21:21 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2012-11-26 21:52   ` Daniel Vetter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20121126212128.GF32309@phenom.ffwll.local \
    --to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox