Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] drm: improve drm_buddy_alloc function

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi

Am 03.01.22 um 08:41 schrieb Christian König:


Am 26.12.21 um 21:59 schrieb Arunpravin:
Hi Thomas

On 16/12/21 5:05 pm, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
Hi

Am 01.12.21 um 17:39 schrieb Arunpravin:
- Make drm_buddy_alloc a single function to handle
    range allocation and non-range allocation demands

- Implemented a new function alloc_range() which allocates
    the requested power-of-two block comply with range limitations

- Moved order computation and memory alignment logic from
    i915 driver to drm buddy

v2:
    merged below changes to keep the build unbroken
     - drm_buddy_alloc_range() becomes obsolete and may be removed
     - enable ttm range allocation (fpfn / lpfn) support in i915 driver
     - apply enhanced drm_buddy_alloc() function to i915 driver

v3(Matthew Auld):
    - Fix alignment issues and remove unnecessary list_empty check
    - add more validation checks for input arguments
    - make alloc_range() block allocations as bottom-up
    - optimize order computation logic
    - replace uint64_t with u64, which is preferred in the kernel

v4(Matthew Auld):
    - keep drm_buddy_alloc_range() function implementation for generic
      actual range allocations
    - keep alloc_range() implementation for end bias allocations

Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@xxxxxxx>
<SNIP>

+#define DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION (1 << 0)
+
   struct drm_buddy_block {
   #define DRM_BUDDY_HEADER_OFFSET GENMASK_ULL(63, 12)
   #define DRM_BUDDY_HEADER_STATE  GENMASK_ULL(11, 10)
@@ -132,12 +139,11 @@ int drm_buddy_init(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, u64 size, u64 chunk_size);
   void drm_buddy_fini(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm);
-struct drm_buddy_block *
-drm_buddy_alloc(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, unsigned int order);
Just a style issue. The structure is called drm_buddy_mm. For
consistency, I like to suggest to name all the public interfaces and
defines drm_buddy_mm_* instead of just drm_buddy_*.

Thanks for the suggestion, I think renaming drm_buddy_* to
drm_buddy_mm_* creates a long name for the public interfaces, for
instance - drm_buddy_mm_alloc_blocks(),
discussing the style issue internally
@Matthew, @christian - please let me know your opinion

I would prefer drm_buddy as prefix as well and I think we could rather drop the _mm postfix from the structure here.

I was mostly concerned about mismatching names for functions and structures. If drm_buddy_ (without mm) for all naming is preferred, I wouldn't mind.

Best regards
Thomas


Cause what we try to manage is not necessary memory, but rather address space.

Christian.


-
-int drm_buddy_alloc_range(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm,
-              struct list_head *blocks,
-              u64 start, u64 size);
+int drm_buddy_alloc(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm,
+            u64 start, u64 end, u64 size,
+            u64 min_page_size,
+            struct list_head *blocks,
+            unsigned long flags);
   void drm_buddy_free(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, struct drm_buddy_block *block);
I'd call those *_alloc_blocks() and _free_blocks(). Right now it sounds
as if they allocate and free instances of drm_buddy_mm.
can we call those drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() and drm_buddy_free_blocks()
Does this make sense?
Best regards
Thomas



--
Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux