Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] drm/ttm: add range busy check for range manager

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

 





On 16/03/2022 09:54, Christian König wrote:
Am 15.03.22 um 19:04 schrieb Robert Beckett:
RFC: do we want this to become a generic interface in
ttm_resource_manager_func?

RFC: would we prefer a different interface? e.g.
for_each_resource_in_range or for_each_bo_in_range

Well completely NAK to that. Why do you need that?

The long term goal is to completely remove the range checks from TTM instead.

ah, I did not know that.
I wanted it just to enable parity with a selftest that checks whether a range is allocated before initializing a given range with test data behind the allocator's back. It needs to check the range so that it doesn't destroy in use data.

I suppose we could add another drm_mm range tracker just for testing and shadow track each allocation in the range, but that seemed like a lot of extra infrastructure for no general runtime use.

would you mind explaining the rationale for removing range checks? It seems to me like a natural fit for a memory manager


Regards,
Christian.


Signed-off-by: Robert Beckett <bob.beckett@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
  include/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.h     |  3 +++
  2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c
index 8cd4f3fb9f79..5662627bb933 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.c
@@ -206,3 +206,24 @@ int ttm_range_man_fini_nocheck(struct ttm_device *bdev,
      return 0;
  }
  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_range_man_fini_nocheck);
+
+/**
+ * ttm_range_man_range_busy - Check whether anything is allocated with a range
+ *
+ * @man: memory manager to check
+ * @fpfn: first page number to check
+ * @lpfn: last page number to check
+ *
+ * Return: true if anything allocated within the range, false otherwise.
+ */
+bool ttm_range_man_range_busy(struct ttm_resource_manager *man,
+                  unsigned fpfn, unsigned lpfn)
+{
+    struct ttm_range_manager *rman = to_range_manager(man);
+    struct drm_mm *mm = &rman->mm;
+
+    if (__drm_mm_interval_first(mm, PFN_PHYS(fpfn), PFN_PHYS(lpfn + 1) - 1))
+        return true;
+    return false;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_range_man_range_busy);
diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.h b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.h
index 7963b957e9ef..86794a3f9101 100644
--- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.h
+++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_range_manager.h
@@ -53,4 +53,7 @@ static __always_inline int ttm_range_man_fini(struct ttm_device *bdev,       BUILD_BUG_ON(__builtin_constant_p(type) && type >= TTM_NUM_MEM_TYPES);
      return ttm_range_man_fini_nocheck(bdev, type);
  }
+
+bool ttm_range_man_range_busy(struct ttm_resource_manager *man,
+                  unsigned fpfn, unsigned lpfn);
  #endif




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux