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. > > 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
