On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:26:15AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 23/01/2017 08:50, Chris Wilson wrote: > >When execlists signals the context completion, it also provides the > >context id for the status event. Assert that id matches the one we expect. > > > >v2: The upper dword of the context status is a duplicate of the upper > >dword from elsp submission (i.e. includes the group id as well as the > >context id). Include this check as well. > > > >Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> > >Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com> > >--- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > >b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > >index 432ee495dec2..963b1888d8a0 100644 > >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > >@@ -595,6 +595,12 @@ static void intel_lrc_irq_handler(unsigned long data) > > if (!(status & GEN8_CTX_STATUS_COMPLETED_MASK)) > > continue; > > > >+ /* Check the context/desc id for this event matches */ > >+ GEM_BUG_ON(((readl(buf + 2 * idx + 1) & > >(MAX_CONTEXT_HW_ID-1)) != > >+ port[0].request->ctx->hw_id)); > >+ GEM_BUG_ON(readl(buf + 2 * idx + 1) != > >+ > >upper_32_bits(port[0].request->ctx->engine[engine->id].lrc_desc)); > >+ > > Not sure that you need the first line since the lrc_desc includes > the hw_id? Or perhaps you don't need the second one since lrc_desc > is built from hw_id? :)
It was defense in depth :) The first line is certain, that make sure the event matches port[0].request. The second line makes sure that everything matches my understanding, and that lrc_desc is correct (or vice versa). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
