On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:03:44PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:54:02PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > + memset(&node, 0, sizeof(node)); > > > + ret = drm_mm_insert_node_in_range_generic(&i915->gtt.base.mm, > > > + &node, > > > + 4096, 0, I915_CACHE_NONE, > > > + 0, i915->gtt.mappable_end, > > > + DRM_MM_SEARCH_DEFAULT, > > > + DRM_MM_CREATE_DEFAULT); > > > > Hm, I think the plan with stolen is to mostly use it for giant scanout > > buffers where we never plan to access them with the gpu. Maybe go with a > > per-page loop here instead? You have a low-level pte writing call below > > anyway. Would mean we'd need a 1-entry onstack sg_table too, but that > > won't hurt. > > I'm not understanding. This is a per-page loop (because we don't need to > bind the entire stolen vma into GGTT for copying with the CPU and > thereby increase the risk of failure). Speaking of failure, should > hibernation be interruptible? I guess it is usually called from an > interruptible process context. I was blind and confused by the insert_entries we have in upstream, which takes a sg_table and hence can only map the full view without some jumping through hoops. Concern fully addressed already ;-) Wrt uninterruptible: GPU should be idle already completely (and reset if something went wrong) so no need for interruptible. Hm, thinking about this: Do we handle a gpu death only detected in gpu_idle? Nasty igt: - inject hang, but be very careful to not cause any wait at all - suspend BOOM or not? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
