• Daniel Vetter's avatar
    drm/i915: Introduce accurate frontbuffer tracking · a071fa00
    Daniel Vetter authored
    So from just a quick look we seem to have enough information to
    accurately figure out whether a given gem bo is used as a frontbuffer
    and where exactly: We have obj->pin_count as a first check with no
    false negatives and only negligible false positives. And then we can
    just walk the modeset objects and figure out where exactly a buffer is
    used as scanout.
    
    Except that we can't due to locking order: If we already hold
    dev->struct_mutex we can't acquire any modeset locks, so could
    potential chase freed pointers and other evil stuff.
    
    So we need something else. For that introduce a new set of bits
    obj->frontbuffer_bits to track where a buffer object is used. That we
    can then chase without grabbing any modeset locks.
    
    Of course the consumers of this (DRRS, PSR, FBC, ...) still need to be
    able to do their magic both when called from modeset and from gem
    code. But that can be easily achieved by adding locks for these
    specific subsystems which always nest within either kms or gem
    locking.
    
    This patch just adds the relevant update code to all places.
    
    Note that if we ever support multi-planar scanout targets then we need
    one frontbuffer tracking bit per attachment point that we expose to
    userspace.
    
    v2:
    - Fix more oopsen. Oops.
    - WARN if we leak obj->frontbuffer_bits when freeing a gem buffer. Fix
      the bugs this brought to light.
    - s/update_frontbuffer_bits/update_fb_bits/. More consistent with the
      fb tracking functions (fb for gem object, frontbuffer for raw bits).
      And the function name was way too long.
    
    v3: Size obj->frontbuffer_bits correctly so that all pipes fit in.
    
    v4: Don't update fb bits in set_base on failure. Noticed by Chris.
    
    v5: s/i915_gem_update_fb_bits/i915_gem_track_fb/ Also remove a few
    local enum pipe variables which are now no longer needed to make the
    function arguments no drop over the 80 char limit.
    
    Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
    Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
    Reviewed-by: default avatarChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
    a071fa00
intel_display.c 359 KB