On 12/11/2015 6:57 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:49:52PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 02:34:13PM +0000, Michel Thierry wrote:
We detected if objects should be moved to the lower parts when 48-bit
support flag was not set, but not the other way around.
This handles the case in which an object was allocated in the 32-bit
address range, but it has been marked as safe to move above it, which
theoretically would help to keep the lower addresses available for
objects which really need to be there.
Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospu...@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thie...@intel.com>
No. This is not lazy. When we run out of low space, we evict. Until then
don't cause extra work for no reason.
Yeah, this stuff should just work. First the eviction code should kick
stuff out, and if we totally deadlock then we'll retry with everything
placed nicely. Long-term objects should segregate (assuming you're not
mixing them up badly in the userspace cache).
How did this come up? I think there's a more in-depth story to be shared
here, with some perf data to illustrate it ...
Hi,
It came from some local testing; Daniele saw bo's with the support flag
enabled staying in the 32-bit range (the test was changing the flag
between submissions).
If there's no space constraints, re-enabling the flag won't relocate
them, only when evict is required as you said... and that's not really
an issue.
Sorry for the noise.
-Michel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
