Eric Anholt wrote: >On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 00:24 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > >>Eric Anholt wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Fri, 2007-09-28 at 12:10 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Eric Anholt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>libdrm/xf86drm.c | 26 ++++ >>>>>libdrm/xf86mm.h | 1 >>>>>linux-core/Makefile | 1 >>>>>linux-core/drm_bo.c | 249 >>>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >>>>>linux-core/drm_drv.c | 3 >>>>>linux-core/drm_ioctl.c | 25 ++-- >>>>>linux-core/drm_objects.h | 3 >>>>>shared-core/drm.h | 29 +++-- >>>>>8 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>>New commits: >>>>>diff-tree 24e33627c5dfb92324a9faf1c7d366e7f33e622a (from parents) >>>>>Merge: 7587e9682c1b70930c015915d588b42ccd00c7c4 >>>>>e7bfeb3031374653f7e55d67cc1b5c823849359f >>>>>Author: Eric Anholt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>Date: Fri Sep 21 17:05:21 2007 -0700 >>>>> >>>>> Merge branch 'bo-set-pin' >>>>> >>>>> This branch replaces the NO_MOVE/NO_EVICT flags to buffer validation >>>>> with a >>>>> separate privileged ioctl to pin buffers like NO_EVICT meant before. >>>>> The >>>>> functionality that was supposed to be covered by NO_MOVE may be >>>>> reintroduced >>>>> later, possibly in a different way, after the superioctl branch is >>>>> merged. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Eric, >>>> >>>>I'm a bit curious about this commit. >>>>At XDS there were some wishes to >>>> >>>>a) Get rid of the memory specification flag at buffer object creation. >>>>b) Get rid of the validate call altogether, forcing non-root clients to >>>>use the superioctl. >>>> >>>>Then with the current set pin interface we have no way to specify where >>>>we want to pin the buffers, >>>> >>>>So either we need to specify this in the set pin interface or perhaps >>>>keep a validate interface with a mandatory >>>>"Don't fence", just to set the buffer flags, but then there's no real >>>>need for the set_pin interface. >>>> >>>>Another functionality we need to keep is to move out the scanout buffers >>>>before releasing them on VT switch, >>>>so that we don't fragment memory. That's currently done by >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>On VT switch everything gets kicked out. The X Server unpins the buffer >>>itself. I'm not seeing the issue there. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Hmm, you're right. VT was a bad example. >>Releasing and reallocating a buffer on an xrandr event is a better one, >>where we need to issue the sequence below. >> >> > >RandR FB resize is just: >disable crtcs scanning from buffer >allocate new buffer >unpin old buffer >copy operation from old to new >pin new >turn on crtcs pointing to new. > > > But the point is you want to avoid fragmentation of the aperture / VRAM by unpin and move out the old buffer before allocating the new one. Something that's possible with the validate interface, but unless we add the buffer flags to the setpin interface, that possibility is gone.
/Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ -- _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
