With a nitpick below, this patch is
Reviewed-by:Xiaogang Chen<Xiaogang.Chen@xxxxxxx>
On 1/8/2024 4:36 PM, Philip Yang wrote:
After range spliting, set new range and old range actual_loc:
new range actual_loc is 0 if new->vram_pages is 0.
old range actual_loc is 0 if old->vram_pages - new->vram_pages == 0.
Signed-off-by: Philip Yang <Philip.Yang@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c | 8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
index cc24f30f88fb..cb09e1d3a643 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
@@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ svm_range *svm_range_new(struct svm_range_list *svms, uint64_t start,
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&prange->child_list);
atomic_set(&prange->invalid, 0);
prange->validate_timestamp = 0;
- prange->vram_pages = 0;
I think it is better to keep it, also:
+new->actual_loc = 0;
though not necessary as prange is allocated by kzalloc, just keep consistent with previous statements, or remove
atomic_set(&prange->invalid, 0);
prange->validate_timestamp = 0;
too.
Regards
Xiaogang
mutex_init(&prange->migrate_mutex);
mutex_init(&prange->lock);
@@ -980,8 +979,12 @@ svm_range_split_pages(struct svm_range *new, struct svm_range *old,
if (r)
return r;
}
- if (old->actual_loc)
+ if (old->actual_loc && new->vram_pages) {
old->vram_pages -= new->vram_pages;
+ new->actual_loc = old->actual_loc;
+ if (!old->vram_pages)
+ old->actual_loc = 0;
+ }
return 0;
}
@@ -1058,7 +1061,6 @@ svm_range_split_adjust(struct svm_range *new, struct svm_range *old,
new->flags = old->flags;
new->preferred_loc = old->preferred_loc;
new->prefetch_loc = old->prefetch_loc;
- new->actual_loc = old->actual_loc;
new->granularity = old->granularity;
new->mapped_to_gpu = old->mapped_to_gpu;
bitmap_copy(new->bitmap_access, old->bitmap_access, MAX_GPU_INSTANCE);
