On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:34:48PM +0000, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 5:30 PM > > To: Mateo Lozano, Oscar > > Cc: Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Madajczak, Tomasz > > Subject: Re: pin OABUFFER to GGTT > > > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 04:24:56PM +0000, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote: > > > Submitting again (this time copying the mailing list correctly): > > > > > > The bo_pin ioctl has been discarded in GEN6+ with this patch: > > > > > > drm/i915: Reject the pin ioctl on gen6+ > > > > > > Especially with ppgtt this kinda stopped making sense. And if we > > > indeed need this to hack around an issue, we need something that also > > > works for non-root. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx > > > > > > The thing is, the performance team used this call to pin the OABUFFER to > > GGTT and then mapping it to userspace. This OABUFFER cannot be in PPGTT > > because: "When each context has its own Per Process GTT, this field should > > be always set to GGTT." (BSpec dixit). > > > > > > Can we re-enable it? or should we find an alternative for this case? > > > > EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT? > > -Chris > > The object (AFAICT, please Tomasz correct me if I am wrong) is not really used inside any batchbuffer. Then what's the issue? If you only use it as via a global gtt mapping it only exists in the ggtt. > Also: > > if (exec[i].flags & EXEC_OBJECT_NEEDS_GTT && > USES_FULL_PPGTT(vm->dev)) { > ret = -EINVAL; > goto err; > } > Yeah, that's just full-ppgtt not quite being ready yet. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
