Hi Christian,
I have some time not to track code, I'm not sure if I miss anything.
In my mind, this change was added while doing performance optimization.
If you don't encounter any problem, I'm suggesting not to change it, we
have many regressions(bug and performance) recently.
Regards,
David Zhou
On 2016å¹´11æ??04æ?¥ 19:00, Christian König wrote:
> From: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>
> This only has the effect of scanning the invisible range twice
> since the topdown flag is given anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 11 -----------
> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
> index 6efa8d7..052c1b0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
> @@ -128,17 +128,6 @@ static void amdgpu_ttm_placement_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> if (flags & AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_VRAM_CONTIGUOUS)
> lpfn = adev->mc.real_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> - if (flags & AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_NO_CPU_ACCESS &&
> - !(flags & AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED) &&
> - adev->mc.visible_vram_size < adev->mc.real_vram_size) {
> - places[c].fpfn = visible_pfn;
> - places[c].lpfn = lpfn;
> - places[c].flags = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC |
> - TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM |
> - TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN;
> - c++;
> - }
> -
> places[c].fpfn = 0;
> places[c].lpfn = lpfn;
> places[c].flags = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED |
