On 01/12/15 13:04, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 12:42:02PM +0000, Dave Gordon wrote:
In various places, one or more pages of a GEM object are mapped into CPU
address space and updated. In each such case, the object should be
marked dirty, to ensure that the modifications are not discarded if the
object is evicted under memory pressure.
This is similar to commit
commit 51bc140431e233284660b1d22c47dec9ecdb521e
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon Aug 31 15:10:39 2015 +0100
drm/i915: Always mark the object as dirty when used by the GPU
in which Chris ensured that updates by the GPU were not lost due to
eviction, but this patch applies instead to the multiple places where
object content is updated by the host CPU.
Apart from that commit was to mask userspace bugs, here we are under
control of when the pages are marked and have chosen a different
per-page interface for CPU writes as opposed to per-object.
-Chris
The pattern
get_pages();
kmap(get_page())
write
kunmap()
occurs often enough that it might be worth providing a common function
to do that and mark only the specific page dirty (other cases touch the
whole object, so for those we can just set the obj->dirty flag and let
put_pages() take care of propagating that to all the individual pages).
But can we be sure that all the functions touched by this patch will
operate only on regular (default) GEM objects (i.e. not phys, stolen,
etc) 'cos some of those don't support per-page tracking. What about
objects with no backing store -- can/should we mark those as dirty
(which would prevent eviction)?
.Dave.
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
