On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 13:25 +0100, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On 23/06/2021 12:51, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> >
> > On 6/23/21 1:26 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
> > > The min_page_size is only needed for pages inserted into the GTT,
> > > and
> > > for our paging structures we only need at most 4K bytes, so
> > > simply
> > > ignore the min_page_size restrictions here, otherwise we might
> > > see some
> > > severe overallocation on some devices.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gtt.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gtt.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gtt.c
> > > index 084ea65d59c0..61e8a8c25374 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gtt.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gtt.c
> > > @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object
> > > *alloc_pt_lmem(struct
> > > i915_address_space *vm, int sz)
> > > {
> > > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> > > - obj = i915_gem_object_create_lmem(vm->i915, sz, 0);
> > > + obj = __i915_gem_object_create_lmem_with_ps(vm->i915, sz,
> > > sz, 0);
> > > /*
> > > * Ensure all paging structures for this vm share the same
> > > dma-resv
> > > * object underneath, with the idea that one object_lock()
> > > will
> > > lock
> >
> > I think for this one the new gt migration code might break, because
> > there we insert even PT pages into the GTT, so it might need a
> > special
> > interface? Ram is looking at supporter larger GPU PTE sizes with
> > that
> > code..
>
> For DG1 at least we don't need this. But yeah we can always just pass
> along the page size when allocating the stash I guess, if we need
> something special for migration?
>
> But when we need to support huge PTEs for stuff other than DG1, then
> it's still a pile of work I assume, since we still need all the
> special
> PTE insertion routines specifically for insert_pte() which will
> differ
> wildly between generations, also each has quite different
> restrictions
> wrt min physical alignment of lmem, whether you can mix 64K/4K PTEs
> in
> the same 2M va range, whether 4K PTEs are even supported for lmem
> etc.
>
> Not sure if it's simpler to go with mapping all of lmem upfront with
> the
> flat-ppGTT? Maybe that sidesteps some of these issues? At least for
> the
> physical alignment of paging structures that would no longer be a
> concern.
Yes, that might be the simplest way forward.
/Thomas
>
> >
> > /Thomas
> >
> >
> >
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
