From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDA56E14B for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2021 03:40:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 05:40:38 +0200 From: Zbigniew =?utf-8?Q?Kempczy=C5=84ski?= Message-ID: <20211004034038.GA3975@zkempczy-mobl2> References: <20210928031100.34317-1-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <20210928065241.GA4608@zkempczy-mobl2> <8735pjf9rr.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <8735pjf9rr.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] Return allocated size in gem_create_in_memory_regions() and friends List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: "Dixit, Ashutosh" Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, John Harrison List-ID: On Sat, Oct 02, 2021 at 01:32:08PM -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > On Mon, 27 Sep 2021 23:52:41 -0700, Zbigniew Kempczyński wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/lib/intel_bufops.c b/lib/intel_bufops.c > > > index d1395c1605d..52794c1ac10 100644 > > > --- a/lib/intel_bufops.c > > > +++ b/lib/intel_bufops.c > > > @@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ static void __intel_buf_init(struct buf_ops *bops, > > > if (handle) > > > buf->handle = handle; > > > else { > > > - if (!__gem_create_in_memory_regions(bops->fd, &handle, size, region)) > > > + if (!__gem_create_in_memory_regions(bops->fd, &handle, &size, region)) > > > buf->handle = handle; > > > else > > > buf->handle = gem_create(bops->fd, size); > > > > As size can be different we pass we should update buf->size accordingly. > > Look at few lines above: > > > > /* Store real bo size to avoid mistakes in calculating it again */ > > buf->size = size; > > > > I think these lines can be moved at the bottom of the condition. > > > > buf->size is returned as a call to intel_buf_bo_size() and used in > > intel_bb_add_object(). This can be important for no-reloc mode to avoid > > overlapping object on softpin and hitting -ENOSPC. > > I have a new patch reverting part of the changes done in 22643ce4014a: > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/95376/ > > In this context I want to check regarding the above change again: should we > be setting buf->size above to the allocated size or to the requested size, > in case the two are different? Currently the code (even after the new > patch) is setting it to the allocated size which might be >= the requested > size. Thanks. Keep the requested size, not underlying bo size. I'm going to do quick rename from intel_buf_bo_size() to intel_buf_size() to avoid confusion we got gem bo size instead of raw sze. -- Zbigniew