On 2019-03-07 10:15 a.m., Chunming Zhou wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@xxxxxxx>
Please provide corresponding UMD patches showing how this is to be used.
> @@ -229,6 +231,14 @@ int amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> if (args->in.domains & ~AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_MASK)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + /* check priority */
> + if (args->in.priority == 0) {
Did you verify that this is 0 with old userspace compiled against struct
drm_amdgpu_gem_create_in without the priority field?
> + /* default is normal */
> + args->in.priority = TTM_BO_PRIORITY_NORMAL;
> + } else if (args->in.priority > TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY) {
> + args->in.priority = TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY;
> + DRM_ERROR("priority specified from user space is over MAX priority\n");
This must be DRM_DEBUG, or buggy/malicious userspace can spam dmesg.
> @@ -252,6 +262,7 @@ int amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>
> r = amdgpu_gem_object_create(adev, size, args->in.alignment,
> (u32)(0xffffffff & args->in.domains),
> + args->in.priority - 1,
> flags, ttm_bo_type_device, resv, &gobj);
It might be less confusing to subtract 1 after checking against
TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY instead of here. Still kind of confusing though. How
about this instead:
Make the priority field of struct drm_amdgpu_gem_create_in signed. In
amdgpu_gem_create_ioctl, clamp the priority to the supported range:
args->in.priority += TTM_BO_PRIORITY_NORMAL;
args->in.priority = max(args->in.priority, 0);
args->in.priority = min(args->in.priority,
TTM_BO_PRIORITY_NORMAL - 1);
This way userspace doesn't need to do a weird mapping of the priority
values (where 0 and 2 have the same meaning), and the range of supported
priorities could at least theoretically be extended without breaking
userspace.
> @@ -304,6 +315,7 @@ int amdgpu_gem_userptr_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>
> /* create a gem object to contain this object in */
> r = amdgpu_gem_object_create(adev, args->size, 0, AMDGPU_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU,
> + TTM_BO_PRIORITY_NORMAL,
> 0, ttm_bo_type_device, NULL, &gobj);
Should the userptr ioctl also allow setting the priority?
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
> index fd9c4beeaaa4..c85304e03021 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
> @@ -494,8 +494,9 @@ static int amdgpu_bo_do_create(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>
> bo->tbo.bdev = &adev->mman.bdev;
> amdgpu_bo_placement_from_domain(bo, bp->domain);
> + bo->tbo.priority = bp->priority;
> if (bp->type == ttm_bo_type_kernel)
> - bo->tbo.priority = 1;
> + bo->tbo.priority = TTM_BO_PRIORITY_VERYHIGH;
if (bp->type == ttm_bo_type_kernel)
bo->tbo.priority = TTM_BO_PRIORITY_VERYHIGH;
else
bo->tbo.priority = bp->priority;
would be clearer I think.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
