On 11/01/2017 04:55 PM, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net
<mailto:ja...@jlekstrand.net>> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:55 AM, Tapani Pälli
<tapani.pa...@intel.com <mailto: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
<mailto: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.cpp
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.
ok, did not catch that as the use case I was running did not use pull
constants, I can send a separate fix for that one.
// Tapani
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
