On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:52:03AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 04:43:55PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > As we'll see in the next patch, being able to evict for just 1 VM is
> > handy.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
> > index cc8974f..e9033f0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
> > @@ -155,12 +155,31 @@ found:
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static int i915_gem_evict_vm(struct i915_address_space *vm, bool do_idle)
> > +{
> > + struct i915_vma *vma, *next;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (do_idle) {
> > + ret = i915_gpu_idle(vm->dev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + i915_gem_retire_requests(vm->dev);
> > + }
> > +
> > + list_for_each_entry_safe(vma, next, &vm->inactive_list, mm_list)
> > + if (vma->obj->pin_count == 0)
> > + WARN_ON(i915_vma_unbind(vma));
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > int
> > i915_gem_evict_everything(struct drm_device *dev)
> > {
> > drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> > struct i915_address_space *vm;
> > - struct i915_vma *vma, *next;
> > bool lists_empty = true;
> > int ret;
> >
> > @@ -187,11 +206,8 @@ i915_gem_evict_everything(struct drm_device *dev)
> > i915_gem_retire_requests(dev);
> >
> > /* Having flushed everything, unbind() should never raise an error */
> > - list_for_each_entry(vm, &dev_priv->vm_list, global_link) {
> > - list_for_each_entry_safe(vma, next, &vm->inactive_list, mm_list)
> > - if (vma->obj->pin_count == 0)
> > - WARN_ON(i915_vma_unbind(vma));
> > - }
> > + list_for_each_entry(vm, &dev_priv->vm_list, global_link)
> > + WARN_ON(i915_gem_evict_vm(vm, false));
>
> Wny not use do_idle here?
> -Chris
>
The point of the extraction was to exactly avoid repeated call to idle +
retire, although in looking back at it, I suppose the cost wouldn't be
much since the first idle would make subsequent calls to idle + retire
just about free).
Just dropping the do_idle parameter, and always idling is what you
probably want.
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
