| Message ID | 1373818974-23102-9-git-send-email-ben@bwidawsk.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 09:22:52AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > Now that I've killed renderctx, and the ILK pm code no longer has > anything shared with the regular i915 context code, make the pin > arguments the same as how they were before I started. > > I do not know the reason for the original pin arguments, so it's totally > possible this commit isn't necessary (and conversely that I temporarily > broke things earlier in the patch series; though I saw no such result). > However, since ILK RC6 worked very well for those of us where it worked, > I think messing with any of the code is unjustified. We should move it out of the aperture as there is no reason for this to be GTT accessible. That requires an extra patch to request top-down allocation. -Chris
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:30:15AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 09:22:52AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Now that I've killed renderctx, and the ILK pm code no longer has > > anything shared with the regular i915 context code, make the pin > > arguments the same as how they were before I started. > > > > I do not know the reason for the original pin arguments, so it's totally > > possible this commit isn't necessary (and conversely that I temporarily > > broke things earlier in the patch series; though I saw no such result). > > However, since ILK RC6 worked very well for those of us where it worked, > > I think messing with any of the code is unjustified. > > We should move it out of the aperture as there is no reason for this to > be GTT accessible. That requires an extra patch to request top-down > allocation. > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre I am perfectly fine with dropping this patch, which I think solves the problem. I see no reason to go back to a 4k aligned alloc, do you?
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:58:57AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > I am perfectly fine with dropping this patch, which I think solves the > problem. I see no reason to go back to a 4k aligned alloc, do you? It still introduces a fair amount of fragmentation - but you can argue that we should be allocating enough single pages for it not to matter. At some point, I am going to notice the hole and wonder what insanity lies within. ;-) However, just dropping the patch isn't quite enough, we need the 'prefer top-down allocations for !mappable' as well to move it out of the aperture. But that is a patch for another time. -Chris
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c index 21e61fc..03b90aa 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c @@ -2858,7 +2858,7 @@ intel_alloc_context_page(struct drm_device *dev) return NULL; } - ret = i915_gem_object_pin(ctx, 64 << 10, false, false); + ret = i915_gem_object_pin(ctx, 4096, true, false); if (ret) { DRM_ERROR("failed to pin power context: %d\n", ret); goto err_unref;
Now that I've killed renderctx, and the ILK pm code no longer has anything shared with the regular i915 context code, make the pin arguments the same as how they were before I started. I do not know the reason for the original pin arguments, so it's totally possible this commit isn't necessary (and conversely that I temporarily broke things earlier in the patch series; though I saw no such result). However, since ILK RC6 worked very well for those of us where it worked, I think messing with any of the code is unjustified. Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)