Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: fix check order in radeon_bo_move
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 03:49:31PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Am 27.11.20 um 15:46 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 3:10 PM Christian König
> > wrote:
> > > Am 27.11.20 um 09:31 schrieb Dave Airlie:
> > > > Oops sorry for delay LGTM
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 02:34, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM Christian König
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Reorder the code to fix checking if blitting is available.
> > > > > Might be good to explain why blitting might not be available, e.g.
> > > > > suspend/resume and or chip death and stuff like that.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian König
> > > > > Needs Fixes: 28a68f828266 ("drm/radeon/ttm: use multihop")
> > > Why does the subject of the patch needs to be in "()" ? I was already
> > > wondering why dim sometimes complains about my Fixes tag.
> > Hm I thought that's the official style. I kinda hacked around on it
> > until linux-next stopped complaining about our Fixes: tags. Maybe it's
> > not quite accurately reflecting the current bikeshed. Iirc checkpatch
> > even complains when you leave out the commit before the sha1, at least
> > in free-form text in the commit message.
>
> Well "git log -1 --oneline 28a68f828266" gives me:
>
> 28a68f828266 drm/radeon/ttm: use multihop
>
> Which is what I would naturally expect here, but no idea what the official
> format should be.
dim cite $sha1 is our attempt at modelling it. And yeah it's just
bikeshedded differently for no good reason. And I just noticed that dim
cite doesn't include the commit before the sha1.
-Daniel
>
> Christian.
>
> > -Daniel
> >
> > > > > Btw
> > > > >
> > > > > $ dim fixes [sha1]
> > > > >
> > > > > generates that for you plus nice cc list of offenders. With the Fixes
> > > > > line added:
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter
> > > Thanks,
> > > Christian.
> > >
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: fix check order in radeon_bo_move
Am 27.11.20 um 15:46 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 3:10 PM Christian König
wrote:
Am 27.11.20 um 09:31 schrieb Dave Airlie:
Oops sorry for delay LGTM
Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie
Thanks.
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 02:34, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM Christian König
wrote:
Reorder the code to fix checking if blitting is available.
Might be good to explain why blitting might not be available, e.g.
suspend/resume and or chip death and stuff like that.
Signed-off-by: Christian König
Needs Fixes: 28a68f828266 ("drm/radeon/ttm: use multihop")
Why does the subject of the patch needs to be in "()" ? I was already
wondering why dim sometimes complains about my Fixes tag.
Hm I thought that's the official style. I kinda hacked around on it
until linux-next stopped complaining about our Fixes: tags. Maybe it's
not quite accurately reflecting the current bikeshed. Iirc checkpatch
even complains when you leave out the commit before the sha1, at least
in free-form text in the commit message.
Well "git log -1 --oneline 28a68f828266" gives me:
28a68f828266 drm/radeon/ttm: use multihop
Which is what I would naturally expect here, but no idea what the
official format should be.
Christian.
-Daniel
Btw
$ dim fixes [sha1]
generates that for you plus nice cc list of offenders. With the Fixes
line added:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter
Thanks,
Christian.
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: fix check order in radeon_bo_move
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 3:10 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Am 27.11.20 um 09:31 schrieb Dave Airlie:
> > Oops sorry for delay LGTM
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 02:34, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM Christian König
> >> wrote:
> >>> Reorder the code to fix checking if blitting is available.
> >> Might be good to explain why blitting might not be available, e.g.
> >> suspend/resume and or chip death and stuff like that.
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian König
> >> Needs Fixes: 28a68f828266 ("drm/radeon/ttm: use multihop")
>
> Why does the subject of the patch needs to be in "()" ? I was already
> wondering why dim sometimes complains about my Fixes tag.
Hm I thought that's the official style. I kinda hacked around on it
until linux-next stopped complaining about our Fixes: tags. Maybe it's
not quite accurately reflecting the current bikeshed. Iirc checkpatch
even complains when you leave out the commit before the sha1, at least
in free-form text in the commit message.
-Daniel
> >>
> >> Btw
> >>
> >> $ dim fixes [sha1]
> >>
> >> generates that for you plus nice cc list of offenders. With the Fixes
> >> line added:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>
> >>
> >> At least I'm hanging onto the illusion that I understand what you did here
> >> :-)
> >> -Daniel
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c | 54 +
> >>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> >>> index 0ca381b95d3d..2b598141225f 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> >>> @@ -216,27 +216,15 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object
> >>> *bo, bool evict,
> >>> struct ttm_resource *old_mem = >mem;
> >>> int r;
> >>>
> >>> - if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> >>> -new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
> >>> - (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
> >>> -new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
> >>> - hop->fpfn = 0;
> >>> - hop->lpfn = 0;
> >>> - hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
> >>> - hop->flags = 0;
> >>> - return -EMULTIHOP;
> >>> - }
> >>> -
> >>> if (new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
> >>> r = radeon_ttm_tt_bind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, new_mem);
> >>> if (r)
> >>> return r;
> >>> }
> >>> - radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
> >>>
> >>> r = ttm_bo_wait_ctx(bo, ctx);
> >>> if (r)
> >>> - goto fail;
> >>> + return r;
> >>>
> >>> /* Can't move a pinned BO */
> >>> rbo = container_of(bo, struct radeon_bo, tbo);
> >>> @@ -246,12 +234,12 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object
> >>> *bo, bool evict,
> >>> rdev = radeon_get_rdev(bo->bdev);
> >>> if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM && bo->ttm == NULL) {
> >>> ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> }
> >>> if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> >>> new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
> >>> ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT &&
> >>> @@ -259,31 +247,37 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object
> >>> *bo, bool evict,
> >>> radeon_ttm_tt_unbind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm);
> >>> ttm_resource_free(bo, >mem);
> >>> ttm_bo_assign_mem(bo, new_mem);
> >>> - return 0;
> >>> + goto out;
> >>> }
> >>> - if (!rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready ||
> >>> - rdev->asic->copy.copy == NULL) {
> >>> - /* use memcpy */
> >>> - goto memcpy;
> >>> + if (rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready &&
> >>> + rdev->asic->copy.copy != NULL) {
> >>> + if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> >>> +new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
> >>> + (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
> >>> +new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
> >>> + hop->fpfn = 0;
> >>> + hop->lpfn = 0;
> >>> + hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
> >>> + hop->flags = 0;
> >>> + return -EMULTIHOP;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + r = -ENODEV;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> - r =
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: fix check order in radeon_bo_move
Am 27.11.20 um 09:31 schrieb Dave Airlie:
Oops sorry for delay LGTM
Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie
Thanks.
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 02:34, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM Christian König
wrote:
Reorder the code to fix checking if blitting is available.
Might be good to explain why blitting might not be available, e.g.
suspend/resume and or chip death and stuff like that.
Signed-off-by: Christian König
Needs Fixes: 28a68f828266 ("drm/radeon/ttm: use multihop")
Why does the subject of the patch needs to be in "()" ? I was already
wondering why dim sometimes complains about my Fixes tag.
Btw
$ dim fixes [sha1]
generates that for you plus nice cc list of offenders. With the Fixes
line added:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter
Thanks,
Christian.
At least I'm hanging onto the illusion that I understand what you did here :-)
-Daniel
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c | 54 +
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
index 0ca381b95d3d..2b598141225f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
@@ -216,27 +216,15 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
struct ttm_resource *old_mem = >mem;
int r;
- if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
-new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
- (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
-new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
- hop->fpfn = 0;
- hop->lpfn = 0;
- hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
- hop->flags = 0;
- return -EMULTIHOP;
- }
-
if (new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
r = radeon_ttm_tt_bind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, new_mem);
if (r)
return r;
}
- radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
r = ttm_bo_wait_ctx(bo, ctx);
if (r)
- goto fail;
+ return r;
/* Can't move a pinned BO */
rbo = container_of(bo, struct radeon_bo, tbo);
@@ -246,12 +234,12 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
rdev = radeon_get_rdev(bo->bdev);
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM && bo->ttm == NULL) {
ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT &&
@@ -259,31 +247,37 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
radeon_ttm_tt_unbind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm);
ttm_resource_free(bo, >mem);
ttm_bo_assign_mem(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
- if (!rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready ||
- rdev->asic->copy.copy == NULL) {
- /* use memcpy */
- goto memcpy;
+ if (rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready &&
+ rdev->asic->copy.copy != NULL) {
+ if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
+new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
+ (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
+new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
+ hop->fpfn = 0;
+ hop->lpfn = 0;
+ hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
+ hop->flags = 0;
+ return -EMULTIHOP;
+ }
+
+ r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
+ } else {
+ r = -ENODEV;
}
- r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
if (r) {
-memcpy:
r = ttm_bo_move_memcpy(bo, ctx, new_mem);
- if (r) {
- goto fail;
- }
+ if (r)
+ return r;
}
+out:
/* update statistics */
atomic64_add((u64)bo->num_pages << PAGE_SHIFT, >num_bytes_moved);
+ radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
return 0;
-fail:
- swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
- radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, false, new_mem);
- swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
- return r;
}
static int radeon_ttm_io_mem_reserve(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, struct
ttm_resource *mem)
--
2.25.1
___
dri-devel mailing list
dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
___
amd-gfx mailing list
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: fix check order in radeon_bo_move
Oops sorry for delay LGTM
Reviewed-by: Dave Airlie
On Fri, 27 Nov 2020 at 02:34, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM Christian König
> wrote:
> >
> > Reorder the code to fix checking if blitting is available.
>
> Might be good to explain why blitting might not be available, e.g.
> suspend/resume and or chip death and stuff like that.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Christian König
>
> Needs Fixes: 28a68f828266 ("drm/radeon/ttm: use multihop")
>
> Btw
>
> $ dim fixes [sha1]
>
> generates that for you plus nice cc list of offenders. With the Fixes
> line added:
>
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter
>
> At least I'm hanging onto the illusion that I understand what you did here :-)
> -Daniel
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c | 54 +
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> > index 0ca381b95d3d..2b598141225f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> > @@ -216,27 +216,15 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object
> > *bo, bool evict,
> > struct ttm_resource *old_mem = >mem;
> > int r;
> >
> > - if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> > -new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
> > - (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
> > -new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
> > - hop->fpfn = 0;
> > - hop->lpfn = 0;
> > - hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
> > - hop->flags = 0;
> > - return -EMULTIHOP;
> > - }
> > -
> > if (new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
> > r = radeon_ttm_tt_bind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, new_mem);
> > if (r)
> > return r;
> > }
> > - radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
> >
> > r = ttm_bo_wait_ctx(bo, ctx);
> > if (r)
> > - goto fail;
> > + return r;
> >
> > /* Can't move a pinned BO */
> > rbo = container_of(bo, struct radeon_bo, tbo);
> > @@ -246,12 +234,12 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object
> > *bo, bool evict,
> > rdev = radeon_get_rdev(bo->bdev);
> > if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM && bo->ttm == NULL) {
> > ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
> > - return 0;
> > + goto out;
> > }
> > if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> > new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
> > ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
> > - return 0;
> > + goto out;
> > }
> >
> > if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT &&
> > @@ -259,31 +247,37 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object
> > *bo, bool evict,
> > radeon_ttm_tt_unbind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm);
> > ttm_resource_free(bo, >mem);
> > ttm_bo_assign_mem(bo, new_mem);
> > - return 0;
> > + goto out;
> > }
> > - if (!rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready ||
> > - rdev->asic->copy.copy == NULL) {
> > - /* use memcpy */
> > - goto memcpy;
> > + if (rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready &&
> > + rdev->asic->copy.copy != NULL) {
> > + if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> > +new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
> > + (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
> > +new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
> > + hop->fpfn = 0;
> > + hop->lpfn = 0;
> > + hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
> > + hop->flags = 0;
> > + return -EMULTIHOP;
> > + }
> > +
> > + r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
> > + } else {
> > + r = -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > - r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
> > if (r) {
> > -memcpy:
> > r = ttm_bo_move_memcpy(bo, ctx, new_mem);
> > - if (r) {
> > - goto fail;
> > - }
> > + if (r)
> > + return r;
> > }
> >
> > +out:
> > /* update statistics */
> > atomic64_add((u64)bo->num_pages << PAGE_SHIFT,
> > >num_bytes_moved);
> > + radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
> > return 0;
> > -fail:
> > - swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
> > - radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, false, new_mem);
> > - swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
> > - return r;
> > }
> >
> > static int radeon_ttm_io_mem_reserve(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, struct
> > ttm_resource *mem)
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> > ___
> > dri-devel mailing list
>
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: fix check order in radeon_bo_move
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 3:34 PM Christian König
wrote:
>
> Reorder the code to fix checking if blitting is available.
Might be good to explain why blitting might not be available, e.g.
suspend/resume and or chip death and stuff like that.
> Signed-off-by: Christian König
Needs Fixes: 28a68f828266 ("drm/radeon/ttm: use multihop")
Btw
$ dim fixes [sha1]
generates that for you plus nice cc list of offenders. With the Fixes
line added:
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter
At least I'm hanging onto the illusion that I understand what you did here :-)
-Daniel
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c | 54 +
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> index 0ca381b95d3d..2b598141225f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
> @@ -216,27 +216,15 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> bool evict,
> struct ttm_resource *old_mem = >mem;
> int r;
>
> - if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> -new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
> - (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
> -new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
> - hop->fpfn = 0;
> - hop->lpfn = 0;
> - hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
> - hop->flags = 0;
> - return -EMULTIHOP;
> - }
> -
> if (new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
> r = radeon_ttm_tt_bind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, new_mem);
> if (r)
> return r;
> }
> - radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
>
> r = ttm_bo_wait_ctx(bo, ctx);
> if (r)
> - goto fail;
> + return r;
>
> /* Can't move a pinned BO */
> rbo = container_of(bo, struct radeon_bo, tbo);
> @@ -246,12 +234,12 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> bool evict,
> rdev = radeon_get_rdev(bo->bdev);
> if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM && bo->ttm == NULL) {
> ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
> - return 0;
> + goto out;
> }
> if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
> ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
> - return 0;
> + goto out;
> }
>
> if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT &&
> @@ -259,31 +247,37 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> bool evict,
> radeon_ttm_tt_unbind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm);
> ttm_resource_free(bo, >mem);
> ttm_bo_assign_mem(bo, new_mem);
> - return 0;
> + goto out;
> }
> - if (!rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready ||
> - rdev->asic->copy.copy == NULL) {
> - /* use memcpy */
> - goto memcpy;
> + if (rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready &&
> + rdev->asic->copy.copy != NULL) {
> + if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
> +new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
> + (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
> +new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
> + hop->fpfn = 0;
> + hop->lpfn = 0;
> + hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
> + hop->flags = 0;
> + return -EMULTIHOP;
> + }
> +
> + r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
> + } else {
> + r = -ENODEV;
> }
>
> - r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
> if (r) {
> -memcpy:
> r = ttm_bo_move_memcpy(bo, ctx, new_mem);
> - if (r) {
> - goto fail;
> - }
> + if (r)
> + return r;
> }
>
> +out:
> /* update statistics */
> atomic64_add((u64)bo->num_pages << PAGE_SHIFT,
> >num_bytes_moved);
> + radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
> return 0;
> -fail:
> - swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
> - radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, false, new_mem);
> - swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
> - return r;
> }
>
> static int radeon_ttm_io_mem_reserve(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, struct
> ttm_resource *mem)
> --
> 2.25.1
>
> ___
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: fix check order in radeon_bo_move
Ping, Dave this is another fix for the Multihop patch set.
Without it radeon is completely broken on drm-misc-next.
Thanks,
Christian.
Am 25.11.20 um 15:34 schrieb Christian König:
Reorder the code to fix checking if blitting is available.
Signed-off-by: Christian König
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c | 54 +
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
index 0ca381b95d3d..2b598141225f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
@@ -216,27 +216,15 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
struct ttm_resource *old_mem = >mem;
int r;
- if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
-new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
- (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
-new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
- hop->fpfn = 0;
- hop->lpfn = 0;
- hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
- hop->flags = 0;
- return -EMULTIHOP;
- }
-
if (new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
r = radeon_ttm_tt_bind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, new_mem);
if (r)
return r;
}
- radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
r = ttm_bo_wait_ctx(bo, ctx);
if (r)
- goto fail;
+ return r;
/* Can't move a pinned BO */
rbo = container_of(bo, struct radeon_bo, tbo);
@@ -246,12 +234,12 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
rdev = radeon_get_rdev(bo->bdev);
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM && bo->ttm == NULL) {
ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT &&
@@ -259,31 +247,37 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
radeon_ttm_tt_unbind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm);
ttm_resource_free(bo, >mem);
ttm_bo_assign_mem(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
- if (!rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready ||
- rdev->asic->copy.copy == NULL) {
- /* use memcpy */
- goto memcpy;
+ if (rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready &&
+ rdev->asic->copy.copy != NULL) {
+ if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
+new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
+ (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
+new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
+ hop->fpfn = 0;
+ hop->lpfn = 0;
+ hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
+ hop->flags = 0;
+ return -EMULTIHOP;
+ }
+
+ r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
+ } else {
+ r = -ENODEV;
}
- r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
if (r) {
-memcpy:
r = ttm_bo_move_memcpy(bo, ctx, new_mem);
- if (r) {
- goto fail;
- }
+ if (r)
+ return r;
}
+out:
/* update statistics */
atomic64_add((u64)bo->num_pages << PAGE_SHIFT, >num_bytes_moved);
+ radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
return 0;
-fail:
- swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
- radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, false, new_mem);
- swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
- return r;
}
static int radeon_ttm_io_mem_reserve(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, struct ttm_resource *mem)
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
[PATCH] drm/radeon: fix check order in radeon_bo_move
Reorder the code to fix checking if blitting is available.
Signed-off-by: Christian König
---
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c | 54 +
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
index 0ca381b95d3d..2b598141225f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_ttm.c
@@ -216,27 +216,15 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
struct ttm_resource *old_mem = >mem;
int r;
- if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
-new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
- (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
-new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
- hop->fpfn = 0;
- hop->lpfn = 0;
- hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
- hop->flags = 0;
- return -EMULTIHOP;
- }
-
if (new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
r = radeon_ttm_tt_bind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, new_mem);
if (r)
return r;
}
- radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
r = ttm_bo_wait_ctx(bo, ctx);
if (r)
- goto fail;
+ return r;
/* Can't move a pinned BO */
rbo = container_of(bo, struct radeon_bo, tbo);
@@ -246,12 +234,12 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
rdev = radeon_get_rdev(bo->bdev);
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM && bo->ttm == NULL) {
ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT) {
ttm_bo_move_null(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
if (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_TT &&
@@ -259,31 +247,37 @@ static int radeon_bo_move(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
bool evict,
radeon_ttm_tt_unbind(bo->bdev, bo->ttm);
ttm_resource_free(bo, >mem);
ttm_bo_assign_mem(bo, new_mem);
- return 0;
+ goto out;
}
- if (!rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready ||
- rdev->asic->copy.copy == NULL) {
- /* use memcpy */
- goto memcpy;
+ if (rdev->ring[radeon_copy_ring_index(rdev)].ready &&
+ rdev->asic->copy.copy != NULL) {
+ if ((old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM &&
+new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM) ||
+ (old_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_VRAM &&
+new_mem->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)) {
+ hop->fpfn = 0;
+ hop->lpfn = 0;
+ hop->mem_type = TTM_PL_TT;
+ hop->flags = 0;
+ return -EMULTIHOP;
+ }
+
+ r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
+ } else {
+ r = -ENODEV;
}
- r = radeon_move_blit(bo, evict, new_mem, old_mem);
if (r) {
-memcpy:
r = ttm_bo_move_memcpy(bo, ctx, new_mem);
- if (r) {
- goto fail;
- }
+ if (r)
+ return r;
}
+out:
/* update statistics */
atomic64_add((u64)bo->num_pages << PAGE_SHIFT, >num_bytes_moved);
+ radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, evict, new_mem);
return 0;
-fail:
- swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
- radeon_bo_move_notify(bo, false, new_mem);
- swap(*new_mem, bo->mem);
- return r;
}
static int radeon_ttm_io_mem_reserve(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, struct
ttm_resource *mem)
--
2.25.1
___
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
