From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: CQ Tang <cq.tang@intel.com>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915/stolen: pass the allocation flags
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 17:14:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8559c955-3882-aec4-f87c-afbe82052e5b@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210420131842.164163-4-matthew.auld@intel.com>
On 20/04/2021 14:18, Matthew Auld wrote:
> From: CQ Tang <cq.tang@intel.com>
>
> Stolen memory is always allocated as physically contiguous pages, mark
> the object flags as such.
>
> v2: move setting I915_BO_ALLOC_CONTIGUOUS into create_stolen
>
> Signed-off-by: CQ Tang <cq.tang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> index 4f9fe5aca37e..46f79b240df7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> @@ -633,14 +633,21 @@ static const struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops i915_gem_object_stolen_ops = {
>
> static int __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(struct intel_memory_region *mem,
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> - struct drm_mm_node *stolen)
> + struct drm_mm_node *stolen,
> + unsigned int flags)
> {
> static struct lock_class_key lock_class;
> unsigned int cache_level;
> int err;
>
> + /*
> + * Stolen objects are always physically contiguous since we just
> + * allocate one big block underneath using the drm_mm range allocator.
> + */
> + flags |= I915_BO_ALLOC_CONTIGUOUS;
> +
> drm_gem_private_object_init(&mem->i915->drm, &obj->base, stolen->size);
> - i915_gem_object_init(obj, &i915_gem_object_stolen_ops, &lock_class, 0);
> + i915_gem_object_init(obj, &i915_gem_object_stolen_ops, &lock_class, flags);
>
> obj->stolen = stolen;
> obj->read_domains = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU | I915_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT;
> @@ -682,7 +689,7 @@ static int _i915_gem_object_stolen_init(struct intel_memory_region *mem,
> if (ret)
> goto err_free;
>
> - ret = __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(mem, obj, stolen);
> + ret = __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(mem, obj, stolen, flags);
Hm odd that previously the flags were ignored in here. I guess no
callers were passing any when creating stolen objects. If none are
supported should we add a GEM_BUG_ON to check for that?
Regards,
Tvrtko
> if (ret)
> goto err_remove;
>
> @@ -700,7 +707,7 @@ i915_gem_object_create_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> resource_size_t size)
> {
> return i915_gem_object_create_region(i915->mm.stolen_region,
> - size, I915_BO_ALLOC_CONTIGUOUS);
> + size, 0);
> }
>
> static int init_stolen_smem(struct intel_memory_region *mem)
> @@ -866,7 +873,7 @@ i915_gem_object_create_stolen_for_preallocated(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> goto err_stolen;
> }
>
> - ret = __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(mem, obj, stolen);
> + ret = __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(mem, obj, stolen, 0);
> if (ret)
> goto err_object_free;
>
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915/stolen: pass the allocation flags
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 17:14:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8559c955-3882-aec4-f87c-afbe82052e5b@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210420131842.164163-4-matthew.auld@intel.com>
On 20/04/2021 14:18, Matthew Auld wrote:
> From: CQ Tang <cq.tang@intel.com>
>
> Stolen memory is always allocated as physically contiguous pages, mark
> the object flags as such.
>
> v2: move setting I915_BO_ALLOC_CONTIGUOUS into create_stolen
>
> Signed-off-by: CQ Tang <cq.tang@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> index 4f9fe5aca37e..46f79b240df7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> @@ -633,14 +633,21 @@ static const struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops i915_gem_object_stolen_ops = {
>
> static int __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(struct intel_memory_region *mem,
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> - struct drm_mm_node *stolen)
> + struct drm_mm_node *stolen,
> + unsigned int flags)
> {
> static struct lock_class_key lock_class;
> unsigned int cache_level;
> int err;
>
> + /*
> + * Stolen objects are always physically contiguous since we just
> + * allocate one big block underneath using the drm_mm range allocator.
> + */
> + flags |= I915_BO_ALLOC_CONTIGUOUS;
> +
> drm_gem_private_object_init(&mem->i915->drm, &obj->base, stolen->size);
> - i915_gem_object_init(obj, &i915_gem_object_stolen_ops, &lock_class, 0);
> + i915_gem_object_init(obj, &i915_gem_object_stolen_ops, &lock_class, flags);
>
> obj->stolen = stolen;
> obj->read_domains = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU | I915_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT;
> @@ -682,7 +689,7 @@ static int _i915_gem_object_stolen_init(struct intel_memory_region *mem,
> if (ret)
> goto err_free;
>
> - ret = __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(mem, obj, stolen);
> + ret = __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(mem, obj, stolen, flags);
Hm odd that previously the flags were ignored in here. I guess no
callers were passing any when creating stolen objects. If none are
supported should we add a GEM_BUG_ON to check for that?
Regards,
Tvrtko
> if (ret)
> goto err_remove;
>
> @@ -700,7 +707,7 @@ i915_gem_object_create_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> resource_size_t size)
> {
> return i915_gem_object_create_region(i915->mm.stolen_region,
> - size, I915_BO_ALLOC_CONTIGUOUS);
> + size, 0);
> }
>
> static int init_stolen_smem(struct intel_memory_region *mem)
> @@ -866,7 +873,7 @@ i915_gem_object_create_stolen_for_preallocated(struct drm_i915_private *i915,
> goto err_stolen;
> }
>
> - ret = __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(mem, obj, stolen);
> + ret = __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(mem, obj, stolen, 0);
> if (ret)
> goto err_object_free;
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-20 16:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-20 13:18 [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Create stolen memory region from local memory Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [PATCH 2/5] drm/i915/stolen: treat stolen local as normal " Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915/stolen: enforce the min_page_size contract Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [PATCH 4/5] drm/i915/stolen: pass the allocation flags Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 16:14 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2021-04-20 16:14 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-04-21 9:48 ` Matthew Auld
2021-04-21 9:48 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915/lmem: Fail driver init if LMEM training failed Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 13:18 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 16:06 ` [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Create stolen memory region from local memory Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-04-20 16:06 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-04-21 9:46 ` Matthew Auld
2021-04-21 9:46 ` [Intel-gfx] " Matthew Auld
2021-04-20 17:29 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [1/5] " Patchwork
2021-04-20 17:34 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.DOCS: " Patchwork
2021-04-20 17:58 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-04-20 22:10 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
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=8559c955-3882-aec4-f87c-afbe82052e5b@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=cq.tang@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.