Am 31.08.22 um 12:37 schrieb Matthew Auld:
[SNIP]
That hopefully just leaves i915_ttm_shrink(), which is swapping out
shmem ttm_tt and is calling ttm_bo_validate() with empty placements
to force the pipeline-gutting path, which importantly unpopulates
the ttm_tt for us (since ttm_tt_unpopulate is not exported it
seems). But AFAICT it looks like that will now also nuke the
bo->resource, instead of just leaving it in system memory. My
assumption is that when later calling ttm_bo_validate(), it will
just do the bo_move_null() in i915_ttm_move(), instead of
re-populating the ttm_tt and then potentially copying it back to
local-memory?
Well you do ttm_bo_validate() with something like GTT domain, don't
you? This should result in re-populating the tt object, but I'm not
100% sure if that really works as expected.
AFAIK for domains we either have system memory (which uses ttm_tt and
might be shmem underneath) or local-memory. But perhaps i915 is doing
something wrong here, or abusing TTM in some way. I'm not sure tbh.
Anyway, I think we have two cases here:
- We have some system memory only object. After doing
i915_ttm_shrink(), bo->resource is now NULL. We then call
ttm_bo_validate() at some later point, but here we don't need to copy
anything, but it also looks like ttm_bo_handle_move_mem() won't
populate the ttm_tt or us either, since mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM. It
looks like i915_ttm_move() was taking care of this, but now we just
call ttm_bo_move_null().
- We have a local-memory only object, which was evicted to shmem, and
then swapped out by the shrinker like above. The bo->resource is NULL.
However this time when calling ttm_bo_validate() we need to actually
do a copy in i915_ttm_move(), as well as re-populate the ttm_tt.
i915_ttm_move() was taking care of this, but now we just call
ttm_bo_move_null().
Perhaps i915 is doing something wrong in the above two cases?
Mhm, as far as I can see that should still work.
See previously you should got a transition from SYSTEM->GTT in
i915_ttm_move() to re-create your backing store. Not you get
NULL->SYSTEM which is handled by ttm_bo_move_null() and then SYSTEM->GTT.
If you just validated to SYSTEM memory before I think the tt object
wouldn't have been populated either.
Regards,
Christian.
Thanks,
Christian.
I've been considering to replacing the ttm_bo_type with a bunch of
behavior flags for a bo. I'm hoping that this will clean things up
a bit.
Regards,
Christian.
caching = i915_ttm_select_tt_caching(obj);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
index 9a7e50534b84bb..c420d1ab605b6f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm_move.c
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ int i915_ttm_move(struct ttm_buffer_object
*bo, bool evict,
bool clear;
int ret;
- if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj)) {
+ if (GEM_WARN_ON(!obj) || !bo->resource) {
ttm_bo_move_null(bo, dst_mem);
return 0;
}
