Am 19.01.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Grazvydas Ignotas:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Christian König
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 18.01.2017 um 12:42 schrieb Monk Liu:
@@ -6743,6 +6741,15 @@ static void gfx_v8_ring_emit_cntxcntl(struct
amdgpu_ring *ring, uint32_t flags)
if (amdgpu_sriov_vf(ring->adev))
gfx_v8_0_ring_emit_de_meta_init(ring,
(flags & AMDGPU_VM_DOMAIN) ? AMDGPU_CSA_VADDR :
ring->adev->virt.csa_vmid0_addr);
+
+ /* We need to pad some NOPs before emit_ib to prevent CE run ahead
of
+ * vm_flush, which may trigger VM fault. */
+ if (ring->wptr > ring->last_vm_flush_pos) /* no wptr wrapping to
RB head */
+ amdgpu_ring_insert_nop(ring, 128 - (ring->wptr -
ring->last_vm_flush_pos));
This can easily result in a negative number, couldn't it?
+ else
+ if (ring->ptr_mask + 1 - ring->last_vm_flush_pos +
ring->wptr < 128)
+ amdgpu_ring_insert_nop(ring,
+ 128 - (ring->ptr_mask + 1 -
ring->last_vm_flush_pos + ring->wptr));
I think it would be cleaner if you calculate the number of NOPs needed first
for both cases and then check if the number isn't negative for both cases.
What about this:
128 - ((ring->wptr - ring->last_vm_flush_pos) & 127)
That won't handle the case for negative nop count correctly either.
See when we already emitted more than 128 dw we don't want to add some more.
Christian.
Gražvydas
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
