Am 15.03.21 um 19:54 schrieb Matthew Auld:
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at 16:04, Christian König
<ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[SNIP]
@@ -1193,6 +1164,10 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
bool locked;
int ret;
+ if (!bo->ttm || bo->ttm->page_flags & (TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG |
+ TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED))
+ return false;
+
return 0; ?
Seems inconsistent to return zero here and not drop the lru lock? Or
maybe turn this into a programmer error, since the current caller
already checks for the above?
Thanks, that is just an artifact from rebasing and should be removed.
[SNIP]
@@ -109,27 +106,60 @@ static int ttm_global_init(void)
long ttm_global_swapout(struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx, gfp_t gfp_flags)
{
struct ttm_global *glob = &ttm_glob;
+ struct ttm_device *bdev;
+ int ret = -EBUSY;
+
+ mutex_lock(&ttm_global_mutex);
+ list_for_each_entry(bdev, &glob->device_list, device_list) {
+ ret = ttm_device_swapout(bdev, ctx, gfp_flags);
Mixing int and long for num_pages.
Does ttm enforce a maximum page count somewhere for object sizes?
We should use 32 bit values for the number of pages in TTM, even signed
values allow for 8TB large BOs.
And I really hope that we can get rid of the BO approach in general
before we ever come close to that limit.
Something like INT_MAX, since it doesn't look like ttm is consistently
using the same type(unsigned long?) when representing the number of
pages for an object?
I should probably add a check for that in the tt code, yes.
[SNIP]
static void ttm_init_sysman(struct ttm_device *bdev)
{
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.c
index b991422e156c..0e82b0662d9e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.c
@@ -1371,7 +1371,7 @@ static int vmw_pm_freeze(struct device *kdev)
vmw_execbuf_release_pinned_bo(dev_priv);
vmw_resource_evict_all(dev_priv);
vmw_release_device_early(dev_priv);
- while (ttm_global_swapout(&ctx, GFP_KERNEL) > 0);
+ while (ttm_device_swapout(&dev_priv->bdev, &ctx, GFP_KERNEL) == 0);
Is this the intended behaviour? ttm_device_swapout() still just
returns num_pages if it swapped something out. I assume this wants to
keep swapping stuff out, until it can't anymore. Or am I missing
something?
Indeed that's a mix up. Thanks for pointing that out.
Christian.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
