On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Patch uses mem_ctx for allocation to ensure param array gets freed
>> later, in blorp clear case this happens in blorp_params_get_clear_kernel.
>>
>> ==6164== 48 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 61 of 193
>> ==6164== at 0x4C2EB6B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
>> ==6164== by 0x12E31C6C: ralloc_size (ralloc.c:121)
>> ==6164== by 0x130189F1: fs_visitor::assign_constant_locations()
>> (brw_fs.cpp:2095)
>> ==6164== by 0x13022D32: fs_visitor::optimize() (brw_fs.cpp:5715)
>> ==6164== by 0x13024D5A: fs_visitor::run_fs(bool, bool)
>> (brw_fs.cpp:6229)
>> ==6164== by 0x1302549A: brw_compile_fs (brw_fs.cpp:6570)
>> ==6164== by 0x130C4B07: blorp_compile_fs (blorp.c:194)
>> ==6164== by 0x130D384B: blorp_params_get_clear_kernel
>> (blorp_clear.c:79)
>> ==6164== by 0x130D3C56: blorp_fast_clear (blorp_clear.c:332)
>> ==6164== by 0x12EFA439: do_single_blorp_clear (brw_blorp.c:1261)
>> ==6164== by 0x12EFC4AF: brw_blorp_clear_color (brw_blorp.c:1326)
>> ==6164== by 0x12EFF72B: brw_clear (brw_clear.c:297)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tapani Pälli <tapani.pa...@intel.com>
>> ---
>> src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp b/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cp
>> p
>> index 4616529abc..6b27c38be7 100644
>> --- a/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp
>> +++ b/src/intel/compiler/brw_fs.cpp
>> @@ -2092,7 +2092,7 @@ fs_visitor::assign_constant_locations()
>> */
>> uint32_t *param = stage_prog_data->param;
>> stage_prog_data->nr_params = num_push_constants;
>> - stage_prog_data->param = ralloc_array(NULL, uint32_t,
>> num_push_constants);
>> + stage_prog_data->param = ralloc_array(mem_ctx, uint32_t,
>> num_push_constants);
>>
>
> Wow, I don't know how I didn't see this pass. The more correct answer is
> that blorp no longer uses push constants, so we can just delete the whole
> mess. I'll send a patch.
>
Gah! Ignore me. This is, indeed, correct.
> if (num_pull_constants > 0) {
>> stage_prog_data->nr_pull_params = num_pull_constants;
>> stage_prog_data->pull_param = ralloc_array(NULL, uint32_t,
>>
>
We should be doing it here as well.
> --
>> 2.13.6
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
