On 20/06/2017 13:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
Since we may track unfenced access (GPU access to the vma that explicitly requires no fence), vma->last_fence may be set without any
Is this the gen < 4 code path? There is no actual fence in this case?
attached fence (vma->fence) and so will not be flushed when we call i915_vma_put_fence(). Since we stopped doing a full retire of the activity trackers for unbind, we need to explicitly retire each tracker. Fixes: b0decaf75bd9 ("drm/i915: Track active vma requests") Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c index 532c709febbd..1cfe137cdc32 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c @@ -672,6 +672,11 @@ int i915_vma_unbind(struct i915_vma *vma) break; }+ if (!ret) {+ ret = i915_gem_active_retire(&vma->last_fence, + &vma->vm->i915->drm.struct_mutex); + } + __i915_vma_unpin(vma); if (ret) return ret;
Looks safe anyway, but I'd like to understand how exactly it happens and if it is still possible after patch 2/3.
Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
