On 10.10.2014 17:51, Alan Swanson wrote:
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)?
Right, I guess I should drop the Cc: stable then and submit a manual
backport of it to the stable list once it has landed in Linus' tree.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
