On 2024-01-09 09:34, Christian König wrote: > Am 09.01.24 um 09:14 schrieb Thomas Hellström: >> On Tue, 2024-01-09 at 08:47 +0100, Christian König wrote: >>> >>> I'm trying to make this functionality a bit more useful for years now >>> since we multiple reports that behavior of drivers can be suboptimal >>> when multiple placements be given. >>> >>> So basically instead of hacking around the TTM behavior in the driver >>> once more I've gone ahead and changed the idle/busy placement list >>> into idle/busy placement flags. This not only saves a bunch of code, >>> but also allows setting some placements as fallback which are used if >>> allocating from the preferred ones didn't worked. >> >> I also have some doubts about the naming "idle" vs "busy", since an >> elaborate eviction mechanism would probably at some point want to check >> for gpu idle vs gpu busy, and this might create some confusion moving >> forward for people confusing busy as in memory overcommit with busy as >> in gpu activity. >> >> I can't immediately think of something better, though. > > Yeah, I was wondering about that as well. Especially since I wanted to add some more flags in the future when for example a bandwidth quota how much memory can be moved in/out is exceeded. > > Something like phase1, phase2, phase3 etc..., but that's also not very descriptive either. Maybe something like "desired" vs "fallback"? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and Xwayland developer
