Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 05:58:12PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote: >> Sometimes when first batch is run with blitter ring, >> @@ -931,7 +931,6 @@ static int gen7_mm_switch(struct i915_hw_ppgtt *ppgtt, >> intel_ring_emit(ring, RING_PP_DIR_BASE(ring)); >> intel_ring_emit(ring, get_pd_offset(ppgtt)); >> intel_ring_emit(ring, MI_NOOP); >> - intel_ring_advance(ring); >> >> /* XXX: RCS is the only one to auto invalidate the TLBs? */ >> if (ring->id != RCS) { >> @@ -940,6 +939,8 @@ static int gen7_mm_switch(struct i915_hw_ppgtt *ppgtt, >> return ret; >> } >> >> + __intel_ring_advance(ring); >> + > > I really would like a comment before each of these, something like > /* XXX This papers over a bug loading PD prior to batch execution */ > > This last chunk is buggy. The earlier unadvanced return will break the > ringbuffer state tracking. Do you have equal success just with the plain > s/intel_ring_advance/__intel_ring_advance/ ?
I have managed to create a series that doesn't need this tail update trickery at all. Please ignore this series. -Mika _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
