[PATCH] drm/amdgpu:guarantee 128dws between vm flush and IB(v3)

[Christian König]

Am 19.01.2017 um 14:51 schrieb Grazvydas Ignotas:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Christian König
> <deathsimple at vodafone.de> 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