On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12.03.2015 10:02, Michel Dänzer wrote: >> >> On 12.03.2015 06:14, Alex Deucher wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@xxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Christian König >>>> <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 11.03.2015 16:44, Alex Deucher wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> radeon_bo_create() calls radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() >>>>>> before ttm_bo_init() is called. radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() >>>>>> uses the ttm bo size to determine when to select top down >>>>>> allocation but since the ttm bo is not initialized yet the >>>>>> check is always false. >>>>>> >>>>>> Noticed-by: Oded Gabbay <oded.gabbay@xxxxxxx> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx> >>>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And I was already wondering why the heck the BOs always made this >>>>> ping/pong >>>>> in memory after creation. >>>>> >>>>> Patch is Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> And fixing that promptly broke VCE due to vram location requirements. >>>> Updated patch attached. Thoughts? >>> >>> And one more take to make things a bit more explicit for static kernel >>> driver allocations. >> >> struct ttm_place::lpfn is honoured even with TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN, so >> latter should work with RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS. It sounds like the >> problem is really that some BOs are expected to be within a certain >> range from the beginning of VRAM, but lpfn isn't set accordingly. It >> would be better to fix that by setting lpfn directly than indirectly via >> RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS. > > > Yeah, agree. We should probably try to find the root cause of this instead. > > As far as I know VCE has no documented limitation on where buffers are > placed (unlike UVD). So this is a bit strange. Are you sure that it isn't > UVD which breaks here? It's definitely VCE, I don't know why UVD didn't have a problem. I considered using pin_restricted to make sure it got pinned in the CPU visible region, but that had two problems: 1. it would end up getting migrated when pinned, 2. it would end up at the top of the restricted region since the top down flag is set which would end up fragmenting vram. Alex > > Regards, > Christian. > > >> >> >> Anyway, since this isn't the first bug which prevents >> TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN from working as intended in the radeon driver, I >> wonder if its performance impact should be re-evaluated. Lauri? >> >> > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
