On 22/09/2022 17:18, Matthew Auld wrote:
On 22/09/2022 09:09, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/09/2022 19:00, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 10:13:12AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 21/09/2022 08:09, Niranjana Vishwanathapura wrote:
Expose i915_gem_object_max_page_size() function non-static
which will be used by the vm_bind feature.
Signed-off-by: Niranjana Vishwanathapura
<niranjana.vishwanathap...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.sh...@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
index 33673fe7ee0a..3b3ab4abb0a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_create.c
@@ -11,14 +11,24 @@
#include "pxp/intel_pxp.h"
#include "i915_drv.h"
+#include "i915_gem_context.h"
I can't spot that you are adding any code which would need this?
I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE_4K? It is in intel_gtt.h.
This include should have been added in a later patch for calling
i915_gem_vm_lookup(). But got added here while patch refactoring.
Will fix.
#include "i915_gem_create.h"
#include "i915_trace.h"
#include "i915_user_extensions.h"
-static u32 object_max_page_size(struct intel_memory_region
**placements,
- unsigned int n_placements)
+/**
+ * i915_gem_object_max_page_size() - max of min_page_size of the
regions
+ * @placements: list of regions
+ * @n_placements: number of the placements
+ *
+ * Calculates the max of the min_page_size of a list of placements
passed in.
+ *
+ * Return: max of the min_page_size
+ */
+u32 i915_gem_object_max_page_size(struct intel_memory_region
**placements,
+ unsigned int n_placements)
{
- u32 max_page_size = 0;
+ u32 max_page_size = I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE_4K;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < n_placements; i++) {
@@ -28,7 +38,6 @@ static u32 object_max_page_size(struct
intel_memory_region **placements,
max_page_size = max_t(u32, max_page_size, mr->min_page_size);
}
- GEM_BUG_ON(!max_page_size);
return max_page_size;
}
@@ -99,7 +108,8 @@ __i915_gem_object_create_user_ext(struct
drm_i915_private *i915, u64 size,
i915_gem_flush_free_objects(i915);
- size = round_up(size, object_max_page_size(placements,
n_placements));
+ size = round_up(size, i915_gem_object_max_page_size(placements,
+ n_placements));
if (size == 0)
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
Because of the changes above this path is now unreachable. I suppose
it was meant to tell the user "you have supplied no placements"? But
then GEM_BUG_ON (which you remove) used to be wrong.
Yah, looks like an existing problem. May be this "size == 0" check
should have been made before we do the round_up()? ie., check input
'size'
paramter is not 0?
I think for now, I will remove this check as it was unreachable anyhow.
Hm that's true as well. i915_gem_create_ext_ioctl ensures at least one
placement and internal callers do as well.
To be safe, instead of removing maybe move to before "size = " and
change to "if (GEM_WARN_ON(n_placements == 0))"? Not sure.. Matt any
thoughts here given the changes in this patch?
The check is also to reject a zero sized object with args->size = 0, i.e
round_up(0, PAGE_SIZE) == 0. So for sure that is still needed here.
Oh yeah sneaky round up.. Thanks, my bad.
Regards,
Tvrtko
