Quoting Matthew Auld (2018-05-18 17:42:27)
> On 17 May 2018 at 07:03, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > static int
> > i915_gem_wait_for_error(struct i915_gpu_error *error)
> > {
> > @@ -2422,6 +2403,8 @@ __i915_gem_object_unset_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> >
> > spin_lock(&i915->mm.obj_lock);
> > list_del(&obj->mm.link);
> > + i915->mm.object_count--;
> > + i915->mm.object_memory -= obj->base.size;
> > spin_unlock(&i915->mm.obj_lock);
> >
> > if (obj->mm.mapping) {
> > @@ -2708,6 +2691,8 @@ void __i915_gem_object_set_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > GEM_BUG_ON(!HAS_PAGE_SIZES(i915, obj->mm.page_sizes.sg));
> >
> > spin_lock(&i915->mm.obj_lock);
> > + i915->mm.object_count++;
> > + i915->mm.object_memory += obj->base.size;
>
> Is it not worthwhile keeping the i915_gem_object_is_shrinkable() check?
If we rebrand these as i915->mm.shrink_count and shrink_memory, makes
sense.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
