On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 04:52:46PM +0000, Barbalho, Rafael wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 4:50 PM > > To: Daniel Vetter > > Cc: Barbalho, Rafael; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] drm/i915: Clean-up PPGTT on context > > destruction > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 05:41:51PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:34:51AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:55:46AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > Well except that our unbind code is too dense to do that correctly for > > > > > shared buffers, so we need to move obj->active to vma->active first. > > > > > > > > We unbind vma, so what do you mean? > > > > > > The unbind of the vma will block since we track active per-obj instead of > > > per-vma. Which is kinda not that cool for a kref_put cleanup function. > > > > As I have said and shown, that is very easy to rectify and has, for > > example, nice side-effects of basically making operating on fences free > > of blocking on the GPU if the object is busy only in the ppgtt. The > > principle use is so that we are consistent in vma vs obj tracking and > > make the code much cleaner imo. > > My initial implementation was tracking the vma in the request structure but it > wasn't as clean. I'll take everything that has been said on-board and clean > things up, and add an igt test too while I am at it. Conceptually I guess we could split up the active list into something per-request, at least right now. But I think that will totally upset the scheduler work, so just moving obj->active to vmas should be a lot less intrusive indeed. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
