[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/17] drm/i915: Don't look at pg_dirty_rings for aliasing ppgtt

[Mika Kuoppala]

Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:49:18PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
>> Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 06:53:41PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 07:11:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:06:36PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> >> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:35:18PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> >> > > > We load the ppgtt ptes once per gpu reset/driver load/resume and
>> >> > > > that's all that's needed. Note that this only blows up when we're
>> >> > > > using the allocate_va_range funcs and not the special-purpose ones
>> >> > > > used. With this change we can get rid of that duplication.
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > Honestly, I would prefer the test to be rewritten so that the
>> >> > > information on which vm was being used was passed along and not that
>> >> > > magic sprinkled in the middle of nowhere. e.g. execbuffer knows exactly
>> >> > > what vm it bound the objects into, and yet towards the end we decide to
>> >> > > guess again. Also, I would rather the execbuffer test be moved to
>> >> > > i915_gem_context since it is scattering internal knowledge about.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Yeah I agree that there's more room for cleanup. I've done this minimal
>> >> > patch purely to shut up the bogus WARN_ONs when I tried to unify the
>> >> > gen6/7 pt alloc code in the next patch. Since it's bogus.
>> >> 
>> >> How about:
>> >
>> > Yeah, but imo there's also more. I tried to understand the gen8 legacy ctx
>> > switch logic and failed, and I wasn't fully convinced that the gen7 one
>> > won't WARN if we actually enable full ppgtt. Given all that I decided to
>> > go with the most minimal patch and just removed the offending bogus WARN.
>> > But Mika/Michel promised to hang around for eventual cleanups?
>> 
>> Yes. There is more to come after this series.
>> I can include Chris's suggestion.
>
> No r-b on this patch as an interim solution? Without it we'll WARN_ON
> unfortunately. Merged all the previous patches meanwhile, thanks for your
> review.

Yes we need this for now.

Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at intel.com>

> -Daniel
> -- 
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> http://blog.ffwll.ch