On 22/07/2019 22:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-07-22 13:16:38)
On 18/07/2019 13:42, Chris Wilson wrote:
As our global unpark/park keep track of the number of active users, we
can simply move the accounting from the GEM layer to the base GT layer.
It was placed originally inside GEM to benefit from the 100ms extra
delay on idleness, but that has been eliminated and now there is no
substantive difference between the layers. In moving it, we move another
piece of the puzzle out from underneath struct_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pm.c | 4 ----
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pm.c
index 8faf262278ae..1afb04660725 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pm.c
@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
#include "gt/intel_gt_pm.h"
#include "i915_drv.h"
-#include "i915_globals.h"
static void call_idle_barriers(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
{
@@ -41,8 +40,6 @@ static void i915_gem_park(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
intel_timelines_park(i915);
i915_vma_parked(i915);
-
- i915_globals_park();
Benefit of this placement was also that what will be freed on parking
was freed by this point so shrinking of slabs is effective. If you move
it to gt parking then that runs to early. So I think it is better that
it stays where it is.
But there's nothing here. You are imaging things. call_idle_barriers and
batch_pool are in engine_park, timelines_park is gone, and vma_parked is
now a timer.
I was thinking about slab shrinkers. They do seem to be called from
i915_globals_park or I am still imagining?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
