Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Put all permanent stolen allocations together
Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-09-11 17:13:18)
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 04:14:39PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > @@ -513,7 +515,8 @@ static int intel_fbc_alloc_cfb(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > goto err_fb;
> >
> > ret = i915_gem_stolen_insert_node(dev_priv, compressed_llb,
> > - 4096, 4096);
> > + 4096, 4096,
> > + DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW);
>
> We seem to alloc/free the line length buffer alongside the cfb.
> So should this use best instead?
Ok, a quick glance suggested that this might have been alloc once.
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index d99e5fabe93c..5d18301ba079 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -7382,7 +7382,8 @@ static void valleyview_setup_pctx(struct
> > drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> >* overlap with other ranges, such as the frame buffer, protected
> >* memory, or any other relevant ranges.
> >*/
> > - pctx = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev_priv, pctx_size);
> > + pctx = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev_priv,
> > + pctx_size, DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW);
>
> I guess there was no special requirement for the placement of this.
> AFAIK the BIOS always allocates it just below the wopcm, but I suppose
> it doesn't matter if we take a different approach.
HIGH or LOW doesn't make much difference. Could be HIGH just for fun ;)
> > if (!pctx) {
> > DRM_DEBUG("not enough stolen space for PCTX, disabling\n");
> > goto out;
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > index 472939f5c18f..e6a23a241cf3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > @@ -1104,7 +1104,7 @@ intel_ring_create_vma(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv, int size)
> > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> > struct i915_vma *vma;
> >
> > - obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev_priv, size);
> > + obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev_priv, size,
> > DRM_MM_INSERT_BEST);
>
> Should these go low? We never reallocate them, right?
There's one per context per engine in execlists, i.e. they are
transient. I didn't feel it was worth differentiating
execlists/legacy as a few allocations once upon startup are more than
likely to be allocated sequentially from the bottom.
Hmm. That does get trickier then as it means that depending on order if
there are any transient allocations amongst the startup, we still end up
with holes and fragmentation layer. Needs a little more thought.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Put all permanent stolen allocations together
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 04:14:39PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Whilst reviewing another new user of stolen memory, Ville made the
> observation that we should try to ensure that all permanent allocations
> within stolen memory are clustered together at either end of the stolen
> region, in order to reduce fragmentation. In the depths of
> i915_gem_stolen.c it is not always clear what manner of allocation we
> need, so expose the drm_mm search parameter and push the decision to our
> callers.
>
> Suggested-by: Ville Syrjälä
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c | 19 ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c| 13 -
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c| 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 +-
> 8 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 7ea442033a57..e68102141067 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -3302,19 +3302,22 @@ static inline void i915_gem_chipset_flush(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>
> /* i915_gem_stolen.c */
> int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> - struct drm_mm_node *node, u64 size,
> - unsigned alignment);
> + struct drm_mm_node *node,
> + u64 size, unsigned int alignment,
> + unsigned int search);
> int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> - struct drm_mm_node *node, u64 size,
> - unsigned alignment, u64 start,
> - u64 end);
> + struct drm_mm_node *node,
> + u64 size, unsigned int alignment,
> + u64 start, u64 end,
> + unsigned int search);
> void i915_gem_stolen_remove_node(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>struct drm_mm_node *node);
> int i915_gem_init_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> void i915_gem_cleanup_stolen(struct drm_device *dev);
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *
> i915_gem_object_create_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> - resource_size_t size);
> + resource_size_t size,
> + unsigned int search);
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *
> i915_gem_object_create_stolen_for_preallocated(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv,
> resource_size_t stolen_offset,
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> index 53440bf87650..ed440e280dd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
> @@ -43,8 +43,10 @@
> */
>
> int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> - struct drm_mm_node *node, u64 size,
> - unsigned alignment, u64 start, u64 end)
> + struct drm_mm_node *node,
> + u64 size, unsigned int alignment,
> + u64 start, u64 end,
> + unsigned int search)
> {
> int ret;
>
> @@ -58,7 +60,7 @@ int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->mm.stolen_lock);
> ret = drm_mm_insert_node_in_range(&dev_priv->mm.stolen, node,
> size, alignment, 0,
> - start, end, DRM_MM_INSERT_BEST);
> + start, end, search);
> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->mm.stolen_lock);
>
> return ret;
> @@ -66,10 +68,12 @@ int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>
> int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> struct drm_mm_node *node, u64 size,
> - unsigned alignment)
> + unsigned int alignment,
> + unsigned int search)
> {
> return i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(dev_priv, node, size,
> - alignment, 0, U64_MAX);
> + alignment, 0, U64_MAX,
> +
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Put all permanent stolen allocations together
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 04:47:42PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-09-11 16:31:56) > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 04:14:39PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Whilst reviewing another new user of stolen memory, Ville made the > > > observation that we should try to ensure that all permanent allocations > > > within stolen memory are clustered together at either end of the stolen > > > region, in order to reduce fragmentation. In the depths of > > > i915_gem_stolen.c it is not always clear what manner of allocation we > > > need, so expose the drm_mm search parameter and push the decision to our > > > callers. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Ville Syrjälä > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +-- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c | 19 --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 3 ++- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c| 13 - > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 3 ++- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c| 3 ++- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 +- > > > 8 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > > index 72eb7e48e8bc..b134b9cabf93 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > > @@ -1306,7 +1306,8 @@ static int get_registers(struct intel_overlay > > > *overlay, bool use_phys) > > > struct i915_vma *vma; > > > int err; > > > > > > - obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(overlay->i915, PAGE_SIZE); > > > + obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(overlay->i915, > > > + PAGE_SIZE, DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW); > > > > Won't these early INSERT_LOWs create problems for the BIOS fb takeover? > > The BIOS reservation is the very first thing we do, right? The sequence > is meant to be init the drm_mm, probe all the HW state (BIOS fb, vlv > pctx, anything else?) and make the reservations, then finish > initialising the unreserved portions before allowing ourselves to > allocate from it. Hmm. Yeah, I think you're right. Somehow I got it into my head that at least the overlay setup would be done before the state readout. In theory that would be the correct order if we had to eg. turn off the overlay while sanitizing the display state in case the BIOS left the overlay on for some reason. But that is likely to never happen so I guess we're fine with the current order. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Put all permanent stolen allocations together
Quoting Ville Syrjälä (2018-09-11 16:31:56) > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 04:14:39PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Whilst reviewing another new user of stolen memory, Ville made the > > observation that we should try to ensure that all permanent allocations > > within stolen memory are clustered together at either end of the stolen > > region, in order to reduce fragmentation. In the depths of > > i915_gem_stolen.c it is not always clear what manner of allocation we > > need, so expose the drm_mm search parameter and push the decision to our > > callers. > > > > Suggested-by: Ville Syrjälä > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +-- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c | 19 --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c| 13 - > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c| 3 ++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 +- > > 8 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > index 72eb7e48e8bc..b134b9cabf93 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c > > @@ -1306,7 +1306,8 @@ static int get_registers(struct intel_overlay > > *overlay, bool use_phys) > > struct i915_vma *vma; > > int err; > > > > - obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(overlay->i915, PAGE_SIZE); > > + obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(overlay->i915, > > + PAGE_SIZE, DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW); > > Won't these early INSERT_LOWs create problems for the BIOS fb takeover? The BIOS reservation is the very first thing we do, right? The sequence is meant to be init the drm_mm, probe all the HW state (BIOS fb, vlv pctx, anything else?) and make the reservations, then finish initialising the unreserved portions before allowing ourselves to allocate from it. -Chris ___ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Put all permanent stolen allocations together
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 04:14:39PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Whilst reviewing another new user of stolen memory, Ville made the
> observation that we should try to ensure that all permanent allocations
> within stolen memory are clustered together at either end of the stolen
> region, in order to reduce fragmentation. In the depths of
> i915_gem_stolen.c it is not always clear what manner of allocation we
> need, so expose the drm_mm search parameter and push the decision to our
> callers.
>
> Suggested-by: Ville Syrjälä
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
> Cc: Ville Syrjälä
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c | 19 ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c| 13 -
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c| 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 +-
> 8 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c
> index 72eb7e48e8bc..b134b9cabf93 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c
> @@ -1306,7 +1306,8 @@ static int get_registers(struct intel_overlay *overlay,
> bool use_phys)
> struct i915_vma *vma;
> int err;
>
> - obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(overlay->i915, PAGE_SIZE);
> + obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(overlay->i915,
> + PAGE_SIZE, DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW);
Won't these early INSERT_LOWs create problems for the BIOS fb takeover?
> if (obj == NULL)
> obj = i915_gem_object_create_internal(overlay->i915, PAGE_SIZE);
> if (IS_ERR(obj))
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index d99e5fabe93c..5d18301ba079 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -7382,7 +7382,8 @@ static void valleyview_setup_pctx(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>* overlap with other ranges, such as the frame buffer, protected
>* memory, or any other relevant ranges.
>*/
> - pctx = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev_priv, pctx_size);
> + pctx = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev_priv,
> + pctx_size, DRM_MM_INSERT_LOW);
> if (!pctx) {
> DRM_DEBUG("not enough stolen space for PCTX, disabling\n");
> goto out;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> index 472939f5c18f..e6a23a241cf3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> @@ -1104,7 +1104,7 @@ intel_ring_create_vma(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv, int size)
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> struct i915_vma *vma;
>
> - obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev_priv, size);
> + obj = i915_gem_object_create_stolen(dev_priv, size, DRM_MM_INSERT_BEST);
> if (!obj)
> obj = i915_gem_object_create_internal(dev_priv, size);
> if (IS_ERR(obj))
> --
> 2.19.0.rc2
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Put all permanent stolen allocations together
Whilst reviewing another new user of stolen memory, Ville made the
observation that we should try to ensure that all permanent allocations
within stolen memory are clustered together at either end of the stolen
region, in order to reduce fragmentation. In the depths of
i915_gem_stolen.c it is not always clear what manner of allocation we
need, so expose the drm_mm search parameter and push the decision to our
callers.
Suggested-by: Ville Syrjälä
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson
Cc: Ville Syrjälä
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 15 +--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c | 19 ---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 3 ++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c| 13 -
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 3 ++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c| 3 ++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 3 ++-
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 +-
8 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 7ea442033a57..e68102141067 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -3302,19 +3302,22 @@ static inline void i915_gem_chipset_flush(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
/* i915_gem_stolen.c */
int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
- struct drm_mm_node *node, u64 size,
- unsigned alignment);
+ struct drm_mm_node *node,
+ u64 size, unsigned int alignment,
+ unsigned int search);
int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
-struct drm_mm_node *node, u64 size,
-unsigned alignment, u64 start,
-u64 end);
+struct drm_mm_node *node,
+u64 size, unsigned int alignment,
+u64 start, u64 end,
+unsigned int search);
void i915_gem_stolen_remove_node(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
struct drm_mm_node *node);
int i915_gem_init_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void i915_gem_cleanup_stolen(struct drm_device *dev);
struct drm_i915_gem_object *
i915_gem_object_create_stolen(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
- resource_size_t size);
+ resource_size_t size,
+ unsigned int search);
struct drm_i915_gem_object *
i915_gem_object_create_stolen_for_preallocated(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv,
resource_size_t stolen_offset,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
index 53440bf87650..ed440e280dd0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_stolen.c
@@ -43,8 +43,10 @@
*/
int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
-struct drm_mm_node *node, u64 size,
-unsigned alignment, u64 start, u64 end)
+struct drm_mm_node *node,
+u64 size, unsigned int alignment,
+u64 start, u64 end,
+unsigned int search)
{
int ret;
@@ -58,7 +60,7 @@ int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
mutex_lock(&dev_priv->mm.stolen_lock);
ret = drm_mm_insert_node_in_range(&dev_priv->mm.stolen, node,
size, alignment, 0,
- start, end, DRM_MM_INSERT_BEST);
+ start, end, search);
mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->mm.stolen_lock);
return ret;
@@ -66,10 +68,12 @@ int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
int i915_gem_stolen_insert_node(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
struct drm_mm_node *node, u64 size,
- unsigned alignment)
+ unsigned int alignment,
+ unsigned int search)
{
return i915_gem_stolen_insert_node_in_range(dev_priv, node, size,
- alignment, 0, U64_MAX);
+ alignment, 0, U64_MAX,
+ search);
}
void i915_gem_stolen_remove_node(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
@@ -591,7 +595,8 @@ _i915_gem_object_create_stolen(struct drm_i915
