From: "Michel Dänzer" <michel@daenzer.net>
To: "Christian König" <deathsimple@vodafone.de>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: Clean up radeon_uvd_force_into_uvd_segment
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:58:31 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5450AC37.4000903@daenzer.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <544F70CE.3000902@vodafone.de>
On 28.10.2014 19:32, Christian König wrote:
> Am 28.10.2014 um 10:28 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
>>
>> It was adding a second placement for the second 256MB segment of VRAM,
>> which is not a good idea for several reasons:
>>
>> * It fills up the first 256MB segment (which is also typically the CPU
>> accessible part) of VRAM first, even for BOs which could go into the
>> second 256MB segment. Only once there is no space in the first segment
>> does it fall back to the second segment.
>> * It doesn't work with RADEON_GEM_NO_CPU_ACCESS BOs, which already use
>> two VRAM placements.
>>
>> Change it to instead restrict the range for each VRAM placement. If the
>> BO can go into the second 256MB segment, set up the range to include
>> both segments, and set the TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN flag. That should result
>> in preferring the second segment for those BOs, falling back to the
>> first segment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
>
> I'm not sure if this will work correctly. Please keep in mind that even
> if BOs can be in the second segment they are not allowed to cross
> segment borders.
>
> E.g. if you just set lpfn = (2 * 256 * 1024 * 1024) >> PAGE_SHIFT it
> might happen that the first halve of a BO lands in the first 256MB
> segment and the second halve of a BO in the second 256MB segment.
>
> Have you considered that as well?
No, I wasn't aware of that restriction.
Looking at the current code again, it returns early if (allowed_domains
== RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM || rbo->placement.num_placement > 1). I think
both of these conditions can only be false if allowed_domains ==
RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT, so can the second 256MB segment only be used for GTT?
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-29 8:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-28 9:28 [PATCH] drm/radeon: Clean up radeon_uvd_force_into_uvd_segment Michel Dänzer
2014-10-28 10:32 ` Christian König
2014-10-29 8:58 ` Michel Dänzer [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5450AC37.4000903@daenzer.net \
--to=michel@daenzer.net \
--cc=deathsimple@vodafone.de \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox