When performing an allocation we try split it down into the largest possible power-of-two blocks/pages-sizes, and for the common case we expect to allocate the blocks in descending order. This also naturally fits with our GTT alignment tricks(including the hugepages selftest), where we sometimes try to align to the largest possible GTT page-size for the allocation, in the hope that translates to bigger GTT page-sizes. Currently, we seem to incorrectly add the blocks in the opposite order, which is definitely not the intended behaviour. Reported-by: CQ Tang <cq.tang@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: CQ Tang <cq.tang@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_memory_region.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_memory_region.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_memory_region.c index 180e1078ef7c..b326993a1026 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_memory_region.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_memory_region.c @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ __intel_memory_region_get_pages_buddy(struct intel_memory_region *mem, n_pages -= BIT(order); block->private = mem; - list_add(&block->link, blocks); + list_add_tail(&block->link, blocks); if (!n_pages) break; -- 2.26.2 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
