From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lauri Kasanen Subject: [RFC 0/3] TTM priority queue logic Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:52:24 +0300 Message-ID: <20140404165224.a4856af5.cand@gmx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BD5B6E0D5 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:51:58 -0700 (PDT) List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Cc: Thomas Hellstrom List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Hi list, Thomas, I'd like to know if this is going in the right direction. I've implemented a priority queue on top of the kernel rb tree and linked list. It's been tested well in userspace. I hardcoded radeon to input the buffer size as the score. Nothing blew up, games ran fine, and even got ~2% more fps on average*. The only thing missing from this code is the "if score is too low, and there is no room without eviction, tell driver so" logic. - Lauri * This is a fairly bad strategy, and according to my simulator achieves 16% worse results compared to LRU in heavier situations. The games tested here all fit in VRAM, which should explain the improvement.