On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 3:59 AM Koenig, Christian <christian.koe...@amd.com> wrote:
> Am 30.10.18 um 16:59 schrieb Michel Dänzer: > > On 2018-10-30 4:52 p.m., Marek Olšák wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 11:49 AM Marek Olšák <mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 4:20 AM Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2018-10-29 10:15 p.m., Marek Olšák wrote: > >>>>> You and I discussed this extensively internally a while ago. It's > >>>> expected > >>>>> and correct behavior. Mesa doesn't unmap some buffers and never will. > >>>> It doesn't need to keep mapping the same buffer over and over again > >>>> though, does it? > >>>> > >>> It doesnt map it again. It just doesnt unmap. So the next map call just > >>> returns the pointer. It's correct to stop the counter wraparound. > >>> > >> Mesa doesn't track whether a buffer is already mapped. Libdrm tracks > that. > >> It's a feature of libdrm to return the same pointer and expect infinite > >> number of map calls. > > That's not what the reference counting in libdrm is intended for. It's > > for keeping track of how many independent callers have mapped the > > buffer. Mesa should remember that it mapped a buffer and not map it > again. > > Well if Mesa just wants to query the existing mapping then why not add a > amdgpu_bo_get_cpu_ptr() which just queries if a CPU mapping exists and > if yes returns the appropriate pointer or NULL otherwise? > > I mean when we want to abstract everything in libdrm then we just need > to add the functions we need to use this abstraction. > That can be future work for the sake of cleanliness and clarity, but it would be a waste of time and wouldn't help old Mesa. Marek
_______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
