On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 03:27:07PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > + Jani and Ville > > Quoting Matthew Auld (2020-09-11 11:56:56) > > On 11/09/2020 06:42, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > I've just been looking at the current DG1 uapi, and I can't see any > > > flag to allow userspace to upfront say it was a contiguous vram BO. > > > > > > I think you'd really want this for scanout, since otherwise you'll > > > have to migrate any non-contig to contig when it transitions to > > > scanout, and cause an extra set of copies. > > > > Hmm, why do we need physically contiguous memory for scanout? From hw > > pov it's seen through the GTT. > > That's correct. On both discrete (and integrated) platforms the scan-out > addresses on Intel GPUs are programmed to targer Global GTT managed by > kernel. So no need to have the backing storage contiguous. The only exception being the ye olde gen2/3 physical cursor stuff :) -- Ville Syrjälä Intel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
