On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 02:14:28PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:55:50PM +0200, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > According to BSpec the entire MI_DISPLAY_FLIP packet must be contained
> > in a single cacheline. Make sure that happens.
> >
> > v2: Use intel_ring_begin_cacheline_safe()
>
> Ugh, no. Let's not make intel_ring_begin() any more complicated and just
> introduce a function to align the current head in the ringbuffer to a
> cacheline. Especially with such an interface that is hard to get right.
This doesn't make intel_ring_begin() itself more complicated, but I
guess you meant that the new special version is too complicated for
your taste?
So I guess you want somehting like this:
int ring_align()
{
nops = (64 - (tail & 63)) / 4;
ret = ring_begin(nops);
if (ret)
return ret;
while (nops--)
ring_emit(MI_NOOP);
ring_advance()
return 0;
}
int queue_flip()
{
ret = ring_align();
if (ret)
return ret;
ret = ring_begin(len);
if (ret)
return ret;
if (RCS)
emit LRI DERRMR;
emit MI_DISPLAY_FLIP;
ring_advance()
return 0;
}
So we end up relying on the fact that the entire
LRI+MI_DISPLAY_FLIP sequence will fit within one cacheline. Although if
that would be problem I suppose we could always emit the LRI before
aligning the tail.
If no one is concerned about the useless MI_NOOPs we'll be emitting for
most flips, I guess it's a good enough solution.
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
