From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean V Kelley Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Do not invalidate obj->pages under mempressure Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 15:27:13 -0800 Message-ID: <54D7F0D1.3070803@posteo.de> References: <1421267671-27225-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20150115204400.GA31845@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Vetter , Chris Wilson , intel-gfx , stable List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On 01/16/2015 08:05 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:44:00PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 08:36:15PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 9:34 PM, Chris Wilson >>> wrote: >>>> This (partially) reverts >>>> >>>> commit 5537252b6b6d71fb1a8ed7395a8e5babf91953fd Author: Chris >>>> Wilson Date: Tue Mar 25 13:23:06 >>>> 2014 +0000 >>>> >>>> drm/i915: Invalidate our pages under memory pressure >>> >>> Shouldn't we also revert the hunk in i915_gem_free_objects? >>> Without the truncate vs. invalidate disdinction it seems to >>> have lost it's reason for existence ... >> >> No, setting MADV_DONTNEED has other nice properties during >> put_pages() - I think it is useful in its own right, for example >> that is where my page stealing code goes... > > Well right now I can't make sense of this bit any more (tbh I > didn't with the other code either, but overlooked that while > reviewing). When it's just there for future work but atm dead code > I prefer for it to get removed. -Daniel So can we also revert the hunk in i915_gem_free_objects? I would like to get this patch merged, it looks like that is the primary concern. Thanks, Sean >