On 22/12/2017 14:19, Chris Wilson wrote:
We should only attempt to remove requests from the execution queue that are on the execution queue. These are the requests that have been assigned a global_seqno, so we can assert that we only attempt to remove requests with a nonzero global_seqno. Afterwards we assert that we remove them in order, i.e. the global_seqno matches the engine's seqno, but that leaves a small loophole for an unattached request on an unused engine.We can then make the same assertion on queuing the request to the execution, it must have a zero global_seqno or else we are queuing the same request twice. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiar...@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c index 59f023bb7015..d575109f7a7f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c @@ -479,6 +479,7 @@ void __i915_gem_request_submit(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) /* Transfer from per-context onto the global per-engine timeline */ timeline = engine->timeline; GEM_BUG_ON(timeline == request->timeline); + GEM_BUG_ON(request->global_seqno);seqno = timeline_get_seqno(timeline);GEM_BUG_ON(!seqno); @@ -525,6 +526,7 @@ void __i915_gem_request_unsubmit(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) /* Only unwind in reverse order, required so that the per-context list * is kept in seqno/ring order. */ + GEM_BUG_ON(!request->global_seqno); GEM_BUG_ON(request->global_seqno != engine->timeline->seqno); engine->timeline->seqno--;
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
