Em sex, 1 de mar de 2019 às 12:26, Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> escreveu:
>
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 11:55:11AM -0300, Shayenne Moura wrote:
> > Em qui, 28 de fev de 2019 às 11:03, Ville Syrjälä
> > <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> escreveu:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:11:07AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:26:06AM -0300, Shayenne Moura wrote:
> > > > > vkms_crc_work_handle needs the value of the actual frame to
> > > > > schedule the workqueue that calls periodically the vblank
> > > > > handler and the destroy state functions. However, the frame
> > > > > value returned from vkms_vblank_simulate is updated and
> > > > > diminished in vblank_get_timestamp because it is not in a
> > > > > vblank interrupt, and return an inaccurate value.
> > > > >
> > > > > Solve this getting the actual vblank frame directly from the
> > > > > vblank->count inside the `struct drm_crtc`, instead of using
> > > > > the `drm_accurate_vblank_count` function.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Shayenne Moura <shayenneluzmo...@gmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the delay, I'm a bit swamped right now :-/
> > > >
> > > > Debug work you're doing here is really impressive! But I have no idea
> > > > what's going on. It doesn't look like it's just papering over a bug
> > > > (like
> > > > the in_vblank_irq check we've discussed on irc), but I also have no idea
> > > > why it works.
> > > >
> > > > I'll pull in Ville, he understands this better than me.
> > >
> > > It's not entirely clear what we're trying to fix. From what I can see
> > > the crc work seems to be in no way synchronized with page flips, so
> > > I'm not sure how all this is really supposed to work.
> > >
> >
> > Hi, Ville!
> >
> > Thank you for the review! :)
> >
> > I do not understand well what crc code is doing, but the issue that I found
> > is related to the vblank timestamp and frame count.
> >
> > When vkms handles the crc_cursor it uses the start frame and end frame
> > values to verify if it needs to call the function 'drm_crtc_add_crc_entry()'
> > for each frame.
> >
> > However, when getting the frame count, the code is calling the function
> > drm_update_vblank_count(dev, pipe, false) and, because of the 'false',
> > subtracting the actual vblank timestamp (consequently, the frame count
> > value), causing conflicts.
>
> The in_vblank_irq behavour looks sane to me. What are these conflicts?
>
The entire history was:
- I sent the patch with bugfix for vblank extra frame. The patch changed
our function vkms_get_vblank_timestamp() to look like this:
bool vkms_get_vblank_timestamp(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe,
int *max_error, ktime_t *vblank_time,
bool in_vblank_irq)
{
struct vkms_device *vkmsdev = drm_device_to_vkms_device(dev);
struct vkms_output *output = &vkmsdev->output;
*vblank_time = output->vblank_hrtimer.node.expires;
+ if (!in_vblank_irq)
+ *vblank_time -= output->period_ns;
return true;
}
- This patch solve the issue that I was looking for (extra vblank
frames on kms_flip).
- However, kms_cursor_crc tests, which passed before my patch, started to fail.
- Debugging them, I found that the problem was inside of function
`vkms_vblank_simulate()`
when it was handling the crc_enabled (inside if (state && output->crc_enabled))
and inside the function vkms_crc_work_handle() too.
- Following the steps:
1. Inside vkms_vblank_simulate() we call drm_crtc_accurate_vblank_count()
2. In its turn, drm_crtc_accurate_vblank_count() calls the function
drm_update_vblank_count(dev, pipe, false). /* This false is default */
3. Finally, the “false” used in drm_update_vblank_count(), will be
passed to vkms_get_vblank_timestamp() and the condition “if
(!in_vblank_irq)” will be executed multiple times (we don’t want it).
- Inside vkms_crc, the issue is that the returned frame value change for
every call of drm_crtc_accurate_vblank_count() because
in_vblank_irq == false.
- To solve this, I used the value already calculated on vblank->count,
instead of using the helper function that updates the value.
Shayenne
> >
> > Does it make sense? I am not sure about this crc code behavior.
> >
> > Shayenne
> >
> > > > -Daniel
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crc.c | 4 +++-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crtc.c | 4 +++-
> > > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crc.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crc.c
> > > > > index d7b409a3c0f8..09a8b00ef1f1 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crc.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crc.c
> > > > > @@ -161,6 +161,8 @@ void vkms_crc_work_handle(struct work_struct
> > > > > *work)
> > > > > struct vkms_output *out = drm_crtc_to_vkms_output(crtc);
> > > > > struct vkms_device *vdev = container_of(out, struct vkms_device,
> > > > > output);
> > > > > + unsigned int pipe = drm_crtc_index(crtc);
> > > > > + struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &crtc->dev->vblank[pipe];
> > > > > struct vkms_crc_data *primary_crc = NULL;
> > > > > struct vkms_crc_data *cursor_crc = NULL;
> > > > > struct drm_plane *plane;
> > > > > @@ -196,7 +198,7 @@ void vkms_crc_work_handle(struct work_struct
> > > > > *work)
> > > > > if (primary_crc)
> > > > > crc32 = _vkms_get_crc(primary_crc, cursor_crc);
> > > > >
> > > > > - frame_end = drm_crtc_accurate_vblank_count(crtc);
> > > > > + frame_end = vblank->count;
> > > > >
> > > > > /* queue_work can fail to schedule crc_work; add crc for
> > > > > * missing frames
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crtc.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crtc.c
> > > > > index 8a9aeb0a9ea8..9bf3268e2e92 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crtc.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vkms/vkms_crtc.c
> > > > > @@ -10,6 +10,8 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart
> > > > > vkms_vblank_simulate(struct hrtimer *timer)
> > > > > vblank_hrtimer);
> > > > > struct drm_crtc *crtc = &output->crtc;
> > > > > struct vkms_crtc_state *state = to_vkms_crtc_state(crtc->state);
> > > > > + unsigned int pipe = drm_crtc_index(crtc);
> > > > > + struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &crtc->dev->vblank[pipe];
> > > > > u64 ret_overrun;
> > > > > bool ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -20,7 +22,7 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart
> > > > > vkms_vblank_simulate(struct hrtimer *timer)
> > > > > DRM_ERROR("vkms failure on handling vblank");
> > > > >
> > > > > if (state && output->crc_enabled) {
> > > > > - u64 frame = drm_crtc_accurate_vblank_count(crtc);
> > > > > + u64 frame = vblank->count;
> > > > >
> > > > > /* update frame_start only if a queued
> > > > > vkms_crc_work_handle()
> > > > > * has read the data
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.17.1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daniel Vetter
> > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > dri-devel mailing list
> > > > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ville Syrjälä
> > > Intel
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
