On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Christian König
<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 17.03.2015 16:19, Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 17.03.2015 07:32, Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Michel Dänzer <michel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 12.03.2015 22:09, Alex Deucher wrote:
>
> 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,
>
> Maybe something like radeon_uvd_force_into_uvd_segment() is needed for
> VCE as well?
>
>
> 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.
>
> If that's an issue (which outweighs the supposed benefit of
> TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN), then again the proper solution would be not to set
> TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN when rbo->placements[i].lpfn != 0 and smaller than
> the whole available region, instead of checking for VRAM and
> RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS.
>
> How about something like the attached patch? I'm not really sure
> about the restrictions for the UVD and VCE fw and stack/heap buffers,
> but this seems to work. It seems like the current UVD/VCE code works
> by accident since the check for TOPDOWN fails.
>
> This patch is getting a bit messy, mixing several logically separate
> changes. Can you split it up accordingly? E.g. one patch just adding the
> new fpfn and lpfn function parameters but passing 0 for them (so no
> functional change), then one or several patches with the corresponding
> functional changes, and finally one patch adding the new size parameter
> (and thus making TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN actually used for newly allocated
> BOs). I think that would help for reviewing and generally understanding
> the changes.
>
>
> @@ -105,14 +106,17 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo
> *rbo, u32 domain)
> */
> if ((rbo->flags & RADEON_GEM_NO_CPU_ACCESS) &&
> rbo->rdev->mc.visible_vram_size <
> rbo->rdev->mc.real_vram_size) {
> - rbo->placements[c].fpfn =
> - rbo->rdev->mc.visible_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> + if (fpfn > (rbo->rdev->mc.visible_vram_size >>
> PAGE_SHIFT))
> + rbo->placements[c].fpfn = fpfn;
> + else
> + rbo->placements[c].fpfn =
> + rbo->rdev->mc.visible_vram_size >>
> PAGE_SHIFT;
> rbo->placements[c++].flags = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC |
> TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED |
> TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
> }
>
> If (fpfn >= rbo->rdev->mc.visible_vram_size), this whole block can be
> skipped, since the next placement will be identical.
>
> OTOH, fpfn is currently always 0 anyway, so maybe it's better not to add
> that parameter in the first place.
>
>
> Other than that, looks good to me.
>
> Broken out patches attached. Also available here:
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~agd5f/linux/log/?h=topdown-fixes
>
> Thinking more about it that approach is a NAK. For limiting a BO into
> visible VRAM we want the limit it to only apply to the VRAM domain entry,
> doing it this way it applies to GTT as well which is really bad for handling
> page faults.
>
> I would rather say let us completely nuke radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain
> for internal allocations and give radeon_bo_create a ttm_placement pointer
> to use.
>
> Driver internal allocations would then have a couple of predefined
> placements for their buffers. We might need to make a few ttm_placement
> pointers const for this, but I think that this is the better approach.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to agree.
Maybe for now we just drop the topdown thing. It seems like it can
only cause needless migration in it's current state. It also reported
breaks suspend/resume on some systems.
Alex
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
