Quoting Matthew Auld (2018-05-18 17:42:27) > On 17 May 2018 at 07:03, Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > static int > > i915_gem_wait_for_error(struct i915_gpu_error *error) > > { > > @@ -2422,6 +2403,8 @@ __i915_gem_object_unset_pages(struct > > drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > > > > spin_lock(&i915->mm.obj_lock); > > list_del(&obj->mm.link); > > + i915->mm.object_count--; > > + i915->mm.object_memory -= obj->base.size; > > spin_unlock(&i915->mm.obj_lock); > > > > if (obj->mm.mapping) { > > @@ -2708,6 +2691,8 @@ void __i915_gem_object_set_pages(struct > > drm_i915_gem_object *obj, > > GEM_BUG_ON(!HAS_PAGE_SIZES(i915, obj->mm.page_sizes.sg)); > > > > spin_lock(&i915->mm.obj_lock); > > + i915->mm.object_count++; > > + i915->mm.object_memory += obj->base.size; > > Is it not worthwhile keeping the i915_gem_object_is_shrinkable() check?
If we rebrand these as i915->mm.shrink_count and shrink_memory, makes sense. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx