Not only must we defend against the span starting too far to the right,
we must also defend against the span terminating too far to the left.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Skip the filling of the whole pixmap if we have a small read and we
know the GPU bo is clear. Also choose to operate inplace on the GPU bo
if we meet the usual criteria.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
It is useful to know and to receive confirmation that you have
successfully compiled and executed the driver with debugging enabled.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Part of the large buffer handling was to move the decision making about
whether to create GPU bo for a pixmap to creation time. The single
instance where we change our minds later is involving large glyphs which
we choose not to cache.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Ordinarily if the GPU is wedged, we just want to create a shadow buffer.
Except that we must ensure that we do allow a bo to be created for
attaching to the scanout.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
The joy of conditional compiles masked this compilation failure when
testing.
Reported-by: Reinhard Karcher <reinhard.karcher@gmx.net>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Do not attempt to further reduce the operator locally in each backend as
the reduction is already performed in the upper layer.
References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42606
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Instead of keeping a virgin partial buffer around on its inactive list,
just transfer it to the global bo cache (in actuality destroy it since
it is just a kmalloc with no pages bound).
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
The root pixmap, for instance, may have unique DRI2Drawables for each
inferior window. We only want to clear the flush flag on the last
release, so we need to keep a count of how many DRI drawables remain
attached rather than a solitary flag.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
As if we try to perform the operation with outstanding operations on the
source pixmaps, we will stall waiting for them to complete.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
As we may be holding on to them as an active mapping whilst they are
executing; reseting the used counter back to zero in this case can cause
corruption.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Whilst iterating the partial list and uploading the buffers, we need to
avoid trigger a recursive call into retire should we attempt to shrink a
buffer. Such a recursive call will modify the list beneath us so that we
chase a stale pointer and wreak havoc with memory corruption.
Reported-by: Clemens Eisserer <linuxhippy@gmail.com>
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47061
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
In the refactoring to avoid repeatedly applying the singular
pCompositeClip, the check for the all-clipped state was lost.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
The idea was to reduce the number of unnecessary flushes by checking for
outgoing damage (could be refined further by inspecting the reply/event
callback for a XDamageNotifyEvent). However, it does not flush
sufficiently for the compositors' liking. As it doesn't appear to restore
performance to near uncomposited levels anyway, remove the complication.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Try to reduce the amount of Add/Delete ping-pong, in particular around
the recreation of the DRI2 attachment to the scanout after pageflipping.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
After we are no longer sharing the bo with foreign clients, we no longer
need to keep flushing before every X_Reply and so we can remove the
callbacks to remove the overhead of having to check every time.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
The goal is to simply avoid the flush before going to sleep when we have
no pending events. That is we only want to flush when we know there will
be at least on X_Reply sent to a Client. (Preferably, it would a Damage
reply!) We can safe assume that every WriteToClient marks the beginning
of a new reply added to the Client output queue and thus know that upon
the next flush event we will emitting a Reply and so need to submit our
batches.
Second attempt to fix a438e4ac.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Chris Wilson