On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:38:13AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > Chris and I just discussed on irc that the bound_list isn't in a great LRU > order right now and Chris sent out a fix for that. But it only works if we > preferrentially shrink inactive objects first. Worth the bother or just a > FIXME? For the fb use-case alone it's not needed since we can't remove the > fb until it's no longer being displayed (otherwise the backwards-compat > code kicks in and synchronously kills the display at RMFB time), and that > pretty much means we can't put the underlying bo into any cache (and mark > it purgeable) either. But a FIXME comment here would be good for sure, > just in case this assumption ever gets broken. I've been mucking around with patch a bit (with contexts-from-stolen reenabled) and the list ierators used here are terrible; severely impacting our allocations by a few orders of magnitude (imagine having just the ggtt full of 4k objects, let alone several ppgtt all full of their own bound 4k objetcs). To combat this will require a special purgeable list maintaind by madv(), and subclassing the struct drm_mm_node to hold our extra details. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
