On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 9:43 AM Christian König < ckoenig.leichtzumer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 16.01.19 um 15:39 schrieb Marek Olšák: > > > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 9:34 AM Koenig, Christian <christian.koe...@amd.com > wrote: > >> Am 16.01.19 um 15:31 schrieb Marek Olšák: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 7:55 AM Christian König < >> ckoenig.leichtzumer...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Well if you ask me we should have the following interface for >>> negotiating memory management with the kernel: >>> >>> 1. We have per process BOs which can't be shared between processes. >>> >>> Those are always valid and don't need to be mentioned in any BO list >>> whatsoever. >>> >>> If we knew that a per process BO is currently not in use we can >>> optionally tell that to the kernel to make memory management more >>> efficient. >>> >>> In other words instead of a list of stuff which is used we send down to >>> the kernel a list of stuff which is not used any more and that only when >>> we know that it is necessary, e.g. when a game or application >>> overcommits. >>> >> >> Radeonsi doesn't use this because this approach caused performance >> degradation and also drops BO priorities. >> >> >> The performance degradation where mostly shortcomings with the LRU which >> by now have been fixed. >> >> BO priorities are a different topic, but could be added to per VM BOs as >> well. >> > > What's the minimum drm version that contains the fixes? > > > I've pushed the last optimization this morning. No idea when it really > became useful, but the numbers from the closed source clients now look much > better. > > We should probably test and bump the drm version when we are sure that > this now works as expected. > We should, but AMD Mesa guys don't have any time. Marek
_______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
