Commit 1137fa86 authored by Chris Wilson's avatar Chris Wilson

drm/i915: Stop setting wraparound seqno on initialisation

We have testcases to ensure that seqno wraparound works fine, so we can
forgo forcing everyone to encounter seqno wraparound during early
uptime. seqno wraparound incurs a full GPU stall so not forcing it
will eliminate one jitter from the early system. Using the testcases, we
have very deterministic testing which given how difficult it would be to
debug an issue (GPU hang) stemming from a wraparound using pure
postmortem analysis I see no value in forcing a wrap during boot.

Advancing the global next_seqno after a GPU reset is equally pointless.

References? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95023Signed-off-by: default avatarChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1467390209-3576-15-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
parent 3d5564e9
......@@ -5119,12 +5119,6 @@ i915_gem_init_hw(struct drm_device *dev)
if (ret)
goto out;
/*
* Increment the next seqno by 0x100 so we have a visible break
* on re-initialisation
*/
ret = i915_gem_set_seqno(dev, dev_priv->next_seqno+0x100);
out:
intel_uncore_forcewake_put(dev_priv, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
return ret;
......@@ -5267,14 +5261,6 @@ i915_gem_load_init(struct drm_device *dev)
dev_priv->relative_constants_mode = I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_GENERAL;
/*
* Set initial sequence number for requests.
* Using this number allows the wraparound to happen early,
* catching any obvious problems.
*/
dev_priv->next_seqno = ((u32)~0 - 0x1100);
dev_priv->last_seqno = ((u32)~0 - 0x1101);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev_priv->mm.fence_list);
init_waitqueue_head(&dev_priv->pending_flip_queue);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment