On 7/1/2015 4:43 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:27:32PM +0100, Michel Thierry wrote:

+       flags |= PIN_ZONE_4G;
+       if (entry->flags & EXEC_OBJECT_SUPPORTS_48B_ADDRESS)
+               flags &= ~PIN_ZONE_4G;
+
        if (!drm_mm_node_allocated(&vma->node)) {
                if (entry->flags & __EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_MAP)
                        flags |= PIN_GLOBAL | PIN_MAPPABLE;
                if (entry->flags & __EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_BIAS)
                        flags |= BATCH_OFFSET_BIAS | PIN_OFFSET_BIAS;
+               if ((flags & PIN_MAPPABLE) == 0)
+                       flags |= PIN_HIGH;

I'm still debating the right semantics to use, but I'm happy with this
until I can find something better. (The biggest issue is that drm_mm is
not indexed for fast top-down searching. The current search code I put
into drm_mm is unfortunately broken, the idea I have in mind to fix it is
to add a hole_list into drm_mm/drm_mm_node, so that we can just walk
holes in up/down, recent/old order. And with that allocating top-down
will not be any more expensive than the current reuse recent hole -
though perhaps given a fragment drm_mm the hole stack probably requires
fewer steps to find a large hole.)

Other than don't touch PIN_OFFSET_MASK and move the w/a note next to
where we tweak the PIN_ZONE_4G, it lgtm, so with those changes,

Also the comment should be "limit address to the first 4GBs for _unflagged_ objects". I didn't update it after changing the logic.

I'll resend with these changes.

Thanks,

Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to