On 21/04/2023 12:45, Emil Velikov wrote:
On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 12:23, Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21/04/2023 11:26, Emil Velikov wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 23:43, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+/**
+ * enum drm_gem_object_status - bitmask of object state for fdinfo reporting
+ * @DRM_GEM_OBJECT_RESIDENT: object is resident in memory (ie. not unpinned)
+ * @DRM_GEM_OBJECT_PURGEABLE: object marked as purgeable by userspace
+ *
+ * Bitmask of status used for fdinfo memory stats, see &drm_gem_object_funcs.status
+ * and drm_show_fdinfo(). Note that an object can DRM_GEM_OBJECT_PURGEABLE if
+ * it still active or not resident, in which case drm_show_fdinfo() will not
nit: s/can/can be/;s/if it still/if it is still/
+ * account for it as purgeable. So drivers do not need to check if the buffer
+ * is idle and resident to return this bit. (Ie. userspace can mark a buffer
+ * as purgeable even while it is still busy on the GPU.. it does not _actually_
+ * become puregeable until it becomes idle. The status gem object func does
nit: s/puregeable/purgeable/
I think we want a similar note in the drm-usage-stats.rst file.
With the above the whole series is:
Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov@xxxxxxxxx>
Have you maybe noticed my slightly alternative proposal? (*) I am not a
fan of putting this flavour of accounting into the core with no way to
opt out. I think it leaves no option but to add more keys in the future
for any driver which will not be happy with the core accounting.
*) https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/116581/
Indeed I saw it. Not a fan of it, I'm afraid.
Hard to guess the reasons. :)
Anyway, at a minimum I suggest that if the no opt out version has to go
in, it is clearly documented drm-*-memory-* is *not* about the full
memory use of the client, but about memory belonging to user visible
buffer objects *only*. Possibly going as far as naming the keys as
drm-user-bo-memory-... That way there is a way to implement proper
drm-*-memory- in the future.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Fwiw: Keeping the i915 patch as part of this series would be great.
Sure i915_drm_client->id becomes dead code, but it's a piece one can
live with for a release or two. Then again it's not my call to make.
Rob can take the i915 patch from my RFC too.
Indeed.
-Emil
