Am 26.12.21 um 21:59 schrieb Arunpravin:
Hi Thomas
On 16/12/21 5:05 pm, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
Hi
Am 01.12.21 um 17:39 schrieb Arunpravin:
- Make drm_buddy_alloc a single function to handle
range allocation and non-range allocation demands
- Implemented a new function alloc_range() which allocates
the requested power-of-two block comply with range limitations
- Moved order computation and memory alignment logic from
i915 driver to drm buddy
v2:
merged below changes to keep the build unbroken
- drm_buddy_alloc_range() becomes obsolete and may be removed
- enable ttm range allocation (fpfn / lpfn) support in i915 driver
- apply enhanced drm_buddy_alloc() function to i915 driver
v3(Matthew Auld):
- Fix alignment issues and remove unnecessary list_empty check
- add more validation checks for input arguments
- make alloc_range() block allocations as bottom-up
- optimize order computation logic
- replace uint64_t with u64, which is preferred in the kernel
v4(Matthew Auld):
- keep drm_buddy_alloc_range() function implementation for generic
actual range allocations
- keep alloc_range() implementation for end bias allocations
Signed-off-by: Arunpravin <Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@xxxxxxx>
<SNIP>
+#define DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION (1 << 0)
+
struct drm_buddy_block {
#define DRM_BUDDY_HEADER_OFFSET GENMASK_ULL(63, 12)
#define DRM_BUDDY_HEADER_STATE GENMASK_ULL(11, 10)
@@ -132,12 +139,11 @@ int drm_buddy_init(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, u64 size, u64 chunk_size);
void drm_buddy_fini(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm);
-struct drm_buddy_block *
-drm_buddy_alloc(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, unsigned int order);
Just a style issue. The structure is called drm_buddy_mm. For
consistency, I like to suggest to name all the public interfaces and
defines drm_buddy_mm_* instead of just drm_buddy_*.
Thanks for the suggestion, I think renaming drm_buddy_* to
drm_buddy_mm_* creates a long name for the public interfaces, for
instance - drm_buddy_mm_alloc_blocks(),
discussing the style issue internally
@Matthew, @christian - please let me know your opinion
I would prefer drm_buddy as prefix as well and I think we could rather
drop the _mm postfix from the structure here.
Cause what we try to manage is not necessary memory, but rather address
space.
Christian.
-
-int drm_buddy_alloc_range(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm,
- struct list_head *blocks,
- u64 start, u64 size);
+int drm_buddy_alloc(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm,
+ u64 start, u64 end, u64 size,
+ u64 min_page_size,
+ struct list_head *blocks,
+ unsigned long flags);
void drm_buddy_free(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, struct drm_buddy_block *block);
I'd call those *_alloc_blocks() and _free_blocks(). Right now it sounds
as if they allocate and free instances of drm_buddy_mm.
can we call those drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() and drm_buddy_free_blocks()
Does this make sense?
Best regards
Thomas
