On 2023-07-24 11:57, Ramesh Errabolu wrote:
Extend checkpoint logic to allow inclusion of VRAM BOs that
do not have a VA attached
Signed-off-by: Ramesh Errabolu <ramesh.errab...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_chardev.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_chardev.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_chardev.c
index 40ac093b5035..5cc00ff4b635 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_chardev.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_chardev.c
@@ -1845,7 +1845,8 @@ static uint32_t get_process_num_bos(struct kfd_process *p)
idr_for_each_entry(&pdd->alloc_idr, mem, id) {
struct kgd_mem *kgd_mem = (struct kgd_mem *)mem;
- if ((uint64_t)kgd_mem->va > pdd->gpuvm_base)
+ if (((uint64_t)kgd_mem->va > pdd->gpuvm_base) ||
+ (kgd_mem->va == 0))
I'm trying to remember what this condition is there to protect against,
because it almost looks like we could drop the entire condition. I think
it's there to avoid checkpointing the TMA/TBA BOs allocated by KFD itself.
That said, you have some unnecessary parentheses in this expression. And
just using !x to check for 0 is usually preferred in the kernel. This
should work and is more readable IMO:
+ if ((uint64_t)kgd_mem->va > pdd->gpuvm_base ||
!kgd_mem->va)
num_of_bos++;
}
}
@@ -1917,7 +1918,8 @@ static int criu_checkpoint_bos(struct kfd_process *p,
kgd_mem = (struct kgd_mem *)mem;
dumper_bo = kgd_mem->bo;
- if ((uint64_t)kgd_mem->va <= pdd->gpuvm_base)
+ if (((uint64_t)kgd_mem->va <= pdd->gpuvm_base) &&
+ !(kgd_mem->va == 0))
Similar to above:
+ if (kgd_mem->va && (uint64_t)kgd_mem->va <=
pdd->gpuvm_base)
Regards,
Felix
continue;
bo_bucket = &bo_buckets[bo_index];
