On 10/3/23 12:00, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> I'd prefer to keep refcounting as is, don't see how to implement your
>> suggestion.
> Can you be more specific? I don't really see what the problem is with
> decrementing pages_use_count when you free the sgt (eviction), and
> re-incrementing it when the
On 10/3/23 14:09, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Unmap tends to refer to a VM related operation (removing a mapping in
> the CPU or GPU VM), so it's confusing too IMHO. What we do here is
> return pages to the shmem file logic, so they can be reclaimed.
>
> Given the drm_gem function doing that is calle
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 22:28:13 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 9/26/23 10:35, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> On 9/15/23 11:46, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >>> The naming becomes quite confusing, with drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked()
> >>> and drm_gem_shmem_unpin_pages_locked(). By the look of it, it seems
Hello Dmitry,
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 03:31:32 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 9/26/23 10:35, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> +__drm_gem_shmem_release_pages(shmem);
> >>> Make sure you drop the implicit pages_use_count ref the sgt had, this
> >>> way you can still tie the necessity to dro
On 9/26/23 10:35, Boris Brezillon wrote:
+ __drm_gem_shmem_release_pages(shmem);
>>> Make sure you drop the implicit pages_use_count ref the sgt had, this
>>> way you can still tie the necessity to drop the pages to sgt != NULL in
>>> drm_gem_shmem_free().
>> This will require further ref
On 9/26/23 10:35, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> On 9/15/23 11:46, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> The naming becomes quite confusing, with drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked()
>>> and drm_gem_shmem_unpin_pages_locked(). By the look of it, it seems to
>>> do exactly the opposite of drm_gem_shmem_swapin_locked(), exc
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 03:37:22 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 9/15/23 11:46, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >> -static int drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object
> >> *shmem)
> >> +static int
> >> +drm_gem_shmem_acquire_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem, bool init)
> >> {
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 03:30:35 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 9/15/23 11:46, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > The naming becomes quite confusing, with drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked()
> > and drm_gem_shmem_unpin_pages_locked(). By the look of it, it seems to
> > do exactly the opposite of drm_gem_shmem_sw
On 9/15/23 11:46, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> -static int drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object
>> *shmem)
>> +static int
>> +drm_gem_shmem_acquire_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem, bool init)
>> {
>> struct drm_gem_object *obj = &shmem->base;
>> struct page *
On 9/15/23 11:46, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> The naming becomes quite confusing, with drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked()
> and drm_gem_shmem_unpin_pages_locked(). By the look of it, it seems to
> do exactly the opposite of drm_gem_shmem_swapin_locked(), except for
> the missing ->evicted = true, which we c
On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 02:27:16 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> Introduce common drm-shmem shrinker for DRM drivers.
>
> To start using drm-shmem shrinker drivers should do the following:
>
> 1. Implement evict() callback of GEM object where driver should check
>whether object is purgeable or e
Introduce common drm-shmem shrinker for DRM drivers.
To start using drm-shmem shrinker drivers should do the following:
1. Implement evict() callback of GEM object where driver should check
whether object is purgeable or evictable using drm-shmem helpers and
perform the shrinking action
2.
12 matches
Mail list logo
