On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:20 +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 09.10.2014 19:22, Alan Swanson wrote: > > On 2014-10-09 07:02, Michel Dänzer wrote: > >> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx> > >> > >> The radeon driver uses placement range restrictions for several reasons, > >> in particular to make sure BOs in VRAM can be accessed by the CPU, e.g. > >> during a page fault. > >> > >> Without this change, TTM could evict other BOs while trying to satisfy > >> the requested placement, even if the evicted BOs were outside of the > >> requested placement range. Doing so didn't free up any space in the > >> requested placement range, so the (potentially high) eviction cost was > >> incurred for no benefit. > >> > >> Nominating for stable because radeon driver changes in 3.17 made this > >> much more noticeable than before. > >> > >> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84662 > >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > [...] > > > I believe you need to "s/place/placement/" over this patch. > > The fpfn and lpfn members were moved from struct ttm_placement to a new > struct ttm_place in f1217ed09f827e42a49ffa6a5aab672aa6f57a65. > > If you mean something else, please elaborate. This patch failed to build on 3.17.0 so wouldn't be a candidate for stable unless the currently drm-next only ttm_place patch also goes to stable (else replace ttm_place with ttm_placements in the patch for stable)? -- Alan. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
