On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Christian K?nig
<deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote:
> Am 28.08.2014 um 08:56 schrieb Michel D?nzer:
>
>> From: Michel D?nzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com>
>>
>> This flag is a hint that userspace expects the BO to be accessed by the
>> CPU. We can use that hint to prevent such BOs from ever being stored in
>> the CPU inaccessible part of VRAM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michel D?nzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com>
>
>
> This patch is Reviewed-by: Christian K?nig <christian.koenig at amd.com>
Applied to my -next tree.
>
> I think we need a similar negative flags as well, e.g.
> RADEON_GEM_NO_CPU_ACCESS.
>
> This way we can stop forcing buffers into the visible VRAM while pinning
> them for scanout.
How about the attached patch?
Alex
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 11 +++++++++--
>> include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h | 2 ++
>> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> index dc74cc5..908ea541 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> @@ -143,7 +143,12 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct
>> radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain)
>> for (i = 0; i < c; ++i) {
>> rbo->placements[i].fpfn = 0;
>> - rbo->placements[i].lpfn = 0;
>> + if ((rbo->flags & RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS) &&
>> + (rbo->placements[i].flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM))
>> + rbo->placements[i].lpfn =
>> + rbo->rdev->mc.visible_vram_size >>
>> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> + else
>> + rbo->placements[i].lpfn = 0;
>> }
>> /*
>> @@ -151,7 +156,9 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo
>> *rbo, u32 domain)
>> * improve fragmentation quality.
>> * 512kb was measured as the most optimal number.
>> */
>> - if (rbo->tbo.mem.size > 512 * 1024) {
>> + if (!((rbo->flags & RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS) &&
>> + (rbo->placements[i].flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM)) &&
>> + rbo->tbo.mem.size > 512 * 1024) {
>> for (i = 0; i < c; i++) {
>> rbo->placements[i].flags |= TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN;
>> }
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h
>> index 509b2d7..bf0067b 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h
>> @@ -799,6 +799,8 @@ struct drm_radeon_gem_info {
>> #define RADEON_GEM_NO_BACKING_STORE (1 << 0)
>> #define RADEON_GEM_GTT_UC (1 << 1)
>> #define RADEON_GEM_GTT_WC (1 << 2)
>> +/* BO is expected to be accessed by the CPU */
>> +#define RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS (1 << 3)
>> struct drm_radeon_gem_create {
>> uint64_t size;
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-drm-radeon-add-RADEON_GEM_NO_CPU_ACCESS-BO-creation-.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1902 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20140828/cf6d8a9f/attachment.patch>
