I'm not clear if the hardware is still subject to the same prefetching
issues that made us use a scratch page in the first place. In either
case, we're using garbage with the current code (we will end up using
offset 0).
This may be the cause of our current gem_cpu_reloc regression with
PPGTT. I cannot test it at the moment.
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <b...@bwidawsk.net>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
index 5427d6d..0f39090 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
@@ -1169,7 +1169,6 @@ static int gen6_ppgtt_init(struct i915_hw_ppgtt *ppgtt)
ppgtt->base.clear_range = gen6_ppgtt_clear_range;
ppgtt->base.insert_entries = gen6_ppgtt_insert_entries;
ppgtt->base.cleanup = gen6_ppgtt_cleanup;
- ppgtt->base.scratch = dev_priv->gtt.base.scratch;
ppgtt->base.start = 0;
ppgtt->base.total = GEN6_PPGTT_PD_ENTRIES * I915_PPGTT_PT_ENTRIES *
PAGE_SIZE;
ppgtt->debug_dump = gen6_dump_ppgtt;
@@ -1192,6 +1191,7 @@ int i915_gem_init_ppgtt(struct drm_device *dev, struct
i915_hw_ppgtt *ppgtt)
int ret = 0;
ppgtt->base.dev = dev;
+ ppgtt->base.scratch = dev_priv->gtt.base.scratch;
if (INTEL_INFO(dev)->gen < 8)
ret = gen6_ppgtt_init(ppgtt);
--
1.9.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
