On 10/16/2017 04:39 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 16/10/17 02:21 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 10/16/2017 12:53 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
Hi, Michel,
On 10/16/2017 12:35 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On 05/09/17 10:15 AM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
If we're seeing a drawable size change, in particular after
processing a
configure notify event, make sure we invalidate so that the state
tracker
picks up the new geometry.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellst...@vmware.com>
---
src/loader/loader_dri3_helper.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/loader/loader_dri3_helper.c
b/src/loader/loader_dri3_helper.c
index 51e4e97..bcd5a66 100644
--- a/src/loader/loader_dri3_helper.c
+++ b/src/loader/loader_dri3_helper.c
@@ -348,6 +348,7 @@ dri3_handle_present_event(struct
loader_dri3_drawable *draw,
draw->width = ce->width;
draw->height = ce->height;
draw->vtable->set_drawable_size(draw, draw->width,
draw->height);
+ draw->ext->flush->invalidate(draw->dri_drawable);
break;
}
case XCB_PRESENT_COMPLETE_NOTIFY: {
@@ -1592,6 +1593,7 @@ loader_dri3_update_drawable_geometry(struct
loader_dri3_drawable *draw)
draw->width = geom_reply->width;
draw->height = geom_reply->height;
draw->vtable->set_drawable_size(draw, draw->width,
draw->height);
+ draw->ext->flush->invalidate(draw->dri_drawable);
free(geom_reply);
}
unfortunately, I just bisected a regression to this commit. With it, the
pipe_resource textures backing DRI3 back buffers are leaked when the
window is resized:
==3408== 273,760 (228,464 direct, 45,296 indirect) bytes in 131
blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1,285 of 1,286
==3408== at 0x4C2DC05: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:711)
==3408== by 0xA04D5D3: r600_texture_create_object
(r600_texture.c:1125)
==3408== by 0xA04E1C1: si_texture_create (r600_texture.c:1382)
==3408== by 0x9CE3A17: dri2_allocate_textures (dri2.c:803)
==3408== by 0x9CDDAE2: dri_st_framebuffer_validate
(dri_drawable.c:85)
==3408== by 0x9B6D07F: st_framebuffer_validate (st_manager.c:195)
==3408== by 0x9B6EE84: st_manager_validate_framebuffers
(st_manager.c:1063)
==3408== by 0x9B21807: st_validate_state (st_atom.c:202)
==3408== by 0x9B2AF75: st_Clear (st_cb_clear.c:411)
==3408== by 0x10A6BD: ??? (in /usr/bin/glxgears)
==3408== by 0x109E37: ??? (in /usr/bin/glxgears)
==3408== by 0x5E202E0: (below main) (libc-start.c:291)
==3408==
==3408== 362,768 (230,208 direct, 132,560 indirect) bytes in 132
blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1,286 of 1,286
==3408== at 0x4C2DC05: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:711)
==3408== by 0xA04D5D3: r600_texture_create_object
(r600_texture.c:1125)
==3408== by 0xA04E1C1: si_texture_create (r600_texture.c:1382)
==3408== by 0x9CE0C0D: dri2_create_image_common (dri2.c:1119)
==3408== by 0x9CE0C6F: dri2_create_image (dri2.c:1140)
==3408== by 0x5386BA8: dri3_alloc_render_buffer
(loader_dri3_helper.c:1030)
==3408== by 0x53876F4: dri3_get_buffer.isra.15
(loader_dri3_helper.c:1364)
==3408== by 0x53886DC: loader_dri3_get_buffers
(loader_dri3_helper.c:1549)
==3408== by 0x9CE298C: dri_image_drawable_get_buffers (dri2.c:452)
==3408== by 0x9CE298C: dri2_allocate_textures (dri2.c:576)
==3408== by 0x9CDDAE2: dri_st_framebuffer_validate
(dri_drawable.c:85)
==3408== by 0x9B6D07F: st_framebuffer_validate (st_manager.c:195)
==3408== by 0x9B6EE84: st_manager_validate_framebuffers
(st_manager.c:1063)
Can you reproduce this with vmwgfx as well? Any ideas why this is
happening / how to fix it?
Looks like other buffers (depth ?) are leaked too, outside dri3, right?
I'll take a look.
/Thomas
Could you try the attached patch? Fixes the issue on my side.
Yes, it fixes the problem for me as well, thanks! I was looking at that
code as well, but didn't realize what's going on.
I think the attached patch would be a cleaner solution though.
I agree. I had that in mind but had a bit too much on my plate today.
Perhaps we should not restrict the application of the patch patch with a
Fixes: tag, though:
Although improbable, the bug could be hit also without that dri3 patch.
Also do we need to do a os_calloc() of the texture pointer array in
st_framebuffer_validate(),
cant we just memset() the fixed size array? Your decision.
Reviewed-by:
Thomas Hellstrom <thellst...@vmware.com>
Thanks,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
