On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:55:00PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 09:00:16AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 04:53:08PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:45:38AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > > Hmm. I really don't see what's actually upsetting. Can you be a bit more > > > > explicit about what's so bothersome to you for my edification? > > > > > > evict_something() make assumptions about the ranges of the vm which it > > > searches. At the moment, they mirror its parent's function. > > > > Ah, thanks. So is plumbing starting eviction offset into evict something an > > appealing solution here? > > Yes. I have to admit to not being overly sold on the code migration yet. > I guess you have an ulterior motive... Evictable vm? > -Chris > The only immediate goal is to be able to get this bit logic out of bind_to_vm, so I can use "preallocated" nodes a bit more cleanly. At least for the present, I have no plans with it other than that. I did like the resuse of the PDE allocation for gen7. If I think of a better reason, I'll let you know. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
