On Monday, April 26, 2021 2:38:58 AM PDT Matthew Auld wrote:
> Add new extension to support setting an immutable-priority-list of
> potential placements, at creation time.
>
> If we use the normal gem_create or gem_create_ext without the
> extensions/placements then we still get the old behaviour with only
> placing the object in system memory.
>
> v2(Daniel & Jason):
> - Add a bunch of kernel-doc
> - Simplify design for placements extension
>
> Testcase: igt/gem_create/create-ext-placement-sanity-check
> Testcase: igt/gem_create/create-ext-placement-each
> Testcase: igt/gem_create/create-ext-placement-all
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.a...@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: CQ Tang <cq.t...@intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com>
> Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwer...@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.jus...@intel.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@intel.com>
> Cc: Kenneth Graunke <kenn...@whitecape.org>
> Cc: Jason Ekstrand <ja...@jlekstrand.net>
> Cc: Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com>
> Cc: dri-de...@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c | 215 ++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c | 3 +
> .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object_types.h | 6 +
> .../drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_mman.c | 26 +++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_memory_region.c | 16 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_memory_region.h | 4 +
> include/uapi/drm/i915_drm.h | 62 +++++
> 7 files changed, 315 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
> index 90e9eb6601b5..895f1666a8d3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
> @@ -4,12 +4,47 @@
> */
>
> #include "gem/i915_gem_ioctls.h"
> +#include "gem/i915_gem_lmem.h"
> #include "gem/i915_gem_region.h"
>
> #include "i915_drv.h"
> #include "i915_trace.h"
> #include "i915_user_extensions.h"
>
> +static u32 object_max_page_size(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> +{
> + u32 max_page_size = 0;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < obj->mm.n_placements; i++) {
> + struct intel_memory_region *mr = obj->mm.placements[i];
> +
> + GEM_BUG_ON(!is_power_of_2(mr->min_page_size));
> + max_page_size = max_t(u32, max_page_size, mr->min_page_size);
> + }
> +
> + GEM_BUG_ON(!max_page_size);
> + return max_page_size;
> +}
> +
> +static void object_set_placements(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> + struct intel_memory_region **placements,
> + unsigned int n_placements)
> +{
> + GEM_BUG_ON(!n_placements);
> +
> + if (n_placements == 1) {
> + struct intel_memory_region *mr = placements[0];
> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = mr->i915;
> +
> + obj->mm.placements = &i915->mm.regions[mr->id];
> + obj->mm.n_placements = 1;
> + } else {
> + obj->mm.placements = placements;
> + obj->mm.n_placements = n_placements;
> + }
> +}
> +
I found this helper function rather odd looking at first. In the
general case, it simply sets fields based on the parameters...but in
the n == 1 case, it goes and uses something else as the array.
On further inspection, this makes sense: normally, we have an array
of multiple placements in priority order. That array is (essentially)
malloc'd. But if there's only 1 item, having a malloc'd array of 1
thing is pretty silly. We can just point at it directly. Which means
the callers can kfree the array, and the object destructor should not.
Maybe a comment saying
/*
* For the common case of one memory region, skip storing an
* allocated array and just point at the region directly.
*/
would be helpful?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
