On 20/12/2016 12:36, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:33:27AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:13:43AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
How much is the cost of freeing and re-acquiring pages in the fall
back case? It could be avoidable by using the table and adding
something like sgt = i915_sg_copy(sgt, table_max_segment). But it
depends on how likely is this path to be hit on swiotlb platforms. I
have no idea. Our datasets are much bigger than the swiotlb space -
if that is true on such platforms?
It's below my level of care (atm). Platforms hitting this are using
swiotlb *bounce* buffers. They will not be able to support a full gfx
workload and be going through a copy. We could avoid the additional
work, the sg_table is large enough for a 1:1 copy if we do it before the
trim, but more importantly we need a simple fix for 4.10.
Pushed this pair as I think this is the safe course of action. Creating
i915_sg_expand() is a job for a rainy day.
It would have been very simple and much more elegant in my opinion. But
I understand Tested-by tag was precious to keep. I'll send a patch
shortly but it won't be very tested due to time constraints.
Also I don't know why you changed page_count and i to unsigned long when
the sg API can only handle unsigned int for that.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
