On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 4:59 AM Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. I'll go back to the helper approach, just been distracted by a few other balls in the air.. should hopefully get to it in the next couple days BR, -R > 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
