Do you have any concern if we also stop using the CPU_ACCESS flag on radeon? Thanks, Marek On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Christian König <deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote: > Yeah, I was thinking something similar. > > See the intention behind CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED is to always guarantee that CPU > access is immediately possible. > > If you ask me that is not really useful for the UMD and was never meant to > be used by Mesa (only the closed source UMD and some kernel internal use > cases). > > I would like to keep the behavior in the kernel driver as it is, but we > should really stop using this as a hint in Mesa. > > Regards, > Christian. > > > Am 29.06.2017 um 16:41 schrieb Marek Olšák: >> >> Hi, >> >> Given how our memory manager works and the guesswork that UMDs have to >> do to determine whether to set the flag, I think the flag isn't >> useful. >> >> I'm proposing that CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED: >> - will be deprecated. >> - It will remain to be accepted by the kernel driver, but it will >> either not have any effect, or it will serve as a hint that might or >> might not be followed. >> - The only flag that UMDs are expected to set with regard to CPU >> access is NO_CPU_ACCESS. >> >> The main motivation is the reduction of "virtual" heaps for UMD buffer >> suballocators and reusable buffer pools. A higher number of heaps >> means that more memory can be wasted by UMDs. >> >> Opinions? >> >> Thanks, >> Marek >> _______________________________________________ >> amd-gfx mailing list >> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx > > >
