On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 15:14, Jason Ekstrand <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Whenever we had a user object (n_placements > 0), we were ignoring > obj->mm.region and always putting obj->placements[0] as the requested > region. For LMEM+SMEM objects, this was causing them to get shoved into > LMEM on every i915_ttm_get_pages() even when SMEM was requested by, say, > i915_gem_object_migrate(). > > Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> AFAIK makes sense, just a question of properly understanding that weird migration issue first. Assuming CI is happy, Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c > index 6589411396d3f..8eeb73c7c401c 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c > @@ -150,8 +150,7 @@ i915_ttm_placement_from_obj(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, > unsigned int i; > > placement->num_placement = 1; > - i915_ttm_place_from_region(num_allowed ? obj->mm.placements[0] : > - obj->mm.region, requested, flags); > + i915_ttm_place_from_region(obj->mm.region, requested, flags); > > /* Cache this on object? */ > placement->num_busy_placement = num_allowed; > -- > 2.31.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
