> On 30/06/17 03:59 PM, Christian König wrote: >> Am 30.06.2017 um 08:51 schrieb Michel Dänzer: >>> We can deal with that internally in the kernel, while fixing the >>> existing flag for userspace. >> And as I said, NAK to that approach. I'm not going to add a >> CPU_ACCESS_REALLY_REQUIRED flag in the kernel just because mesa has >> messed up it's use case. >> >> We could agree on filtering that flag from userspace when BOs are >> created and/or map it to a CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_HINT flag. > Then I propose the following: > > One patch: > > Convert AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED to a kernel internal flag > AMDGPU_GEM_CPU_ACCESS_HINT in amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl, which is > initially treated the same way as AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED. > > Another patch: > > Change the treatment of AMDGPU_GEM_CPU_ACCESS_HINT according to John's > patch 4 in the latest series, or a variation of that as discussed on IRC. > > > If any regressions are reported, we will be able to differentiate > whether they are due to the addition of the new flag itself or due to > the change in its handling. > How about this? Note: I haven't tested this beyond compiling. See replies for: [PATCH RFC 1/2] drm/amdgpu: Add AMDGPU_BO_FLAG_CPU_ACCESS [PATCH RFC 2/2] drm/amdgpu: Set/clear CPU_ACCESS flag on page fault John > > -- > Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com > Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
