On 24.01.2017 11:34, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 01/24/2017 11:31 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 24.01.2017 11:25, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 01/24/2017 07:39 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 24/01/17 05:44 AM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
Useful when debugging applications which map too much VRAM.
Is the number of mapped buffers really useful, as opposed to the total
size of buffer mappings? Even if it was the latter though, it doesn't
show which mappings are for BOs in VRAM vs GTT, does it? Also, even the
total size of mappings of BOs currently in VRAM doesn't directly
reflect
the pressure on the CPU visible part of VRAM — only the BOs which are
actively being accessed by the CPU contribute to that.
It's actually useful to know the number of mapped buffers, but maybe it
would be better to have two separate counters for GTT and VRAM. Although
the number of mapped buffers in VRAM is most of the time very high
compared to GTT AFAIK.
I will submit in a follow-up patch, something which reduces the number
of mapped buffers in VRAM (when a BO has been mapped only once). And
this new counter helped me.
Michel's point probably means that reducing the number/size of mapped
VRAM buffers isn't actually that important though.
It seems useful for apps which map more than 256MB of VRAM.
True, if all of that range is actually used by the CPU (which may well
happen, of course). If I understand Michel correctly (and this was news
to me as well), if 1GB of VRAM is mapped, but only 64MB of that are
regularly accessed by the CPU, then the kernel will migrate all of the
rest into non-visible VRAM.
Nicolai
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
