Re: Rework TTMs busy handling

["Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>]

Hi, Christian

On Tue, 2024-01-09 at 08:47 +0100, Christian König wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm trying to make this functionality a bit more useful for years now
> since we multiple reports that behavior of drivers can be suboptimal
> when multiple placements be given.
> 
> So basically instead of hacking around the TTM behavior in the driver
> once more I've gone ahead and changed the idle/busy placement list
> into idle/busy placement flags. This not only saves a bunch of code,
> but also allows setting some placements as fallback which are used if
> allocating from the preferred ones didn't worked.
> 
> Zack pointed out that some removed VMWGFX code was brought back
> because
> of rebasing, fixed in this version.
> 
> Intel CI seems to be happy with those patches, so any more comments?

Looks like Xe changes are missing? (xe is now in drm-tip).

I also have some doubts about the naming "idle" vs "busy", since an
elaborate eviction mechanism would probably at some point want to check
for gpu idle vs gpu busy, and this might create some confusion moving
forward for people confusing busy as in memory overcommit with busy as
in gpu activity.

I can't immediately think of something better, though.

/Thomas


> 
> Regards,
> Christian.
> 
>