Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Allow shrinking of userptr objects once again

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 01/11/2016 13:52, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 01:28:06PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>

Commit 1bec9b0bda3d ("drm/i915/shrinker: Only shmemfs objects
are backed by swap") stopped considering the userptr objects
in shrinker callbacks.

Restore that so idle userptr objects can be discarded in order
to free up memory.

One change further to what was introduced in 1bec9b0bda3d is
to start considering userptr objects in oom but that should
also be a correct thing to do.

Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 1bec9b0bda3d ("drm/i915/shrinker: Only shmemfs objects are backed by swap")
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
index 0993afc0e725..dfca1f6b3630 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
@@ -83,8 +83,8 @@ static bool can_release_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
 	if (!obj->mm.pages)
 		return false;

-	/* Only shmemfs objects are backed by swap */
-	if (!obj->base.filp)
+	/* shmemfs and userptr objects are backed by swap */
+	if (!obj->base.filp && !obj->userptr.mm)

Hmm. Another sticking point if we want to use the union again.

How about obj->ops->flags & I915_GEM_OBJECT_HAS_BACKING_STORE ?
Or I915_GEM_OBJECT_CAN_SWAP since we want this for i915_gem_internal.c
as well, and that techinically doesn't have a backing store but can be
reaped. Hmm.

if (!(obj->ops->flags & I915_GEM_OBJECT_HAS_BACKING_STORE ||
      obj->mm.madv == I915_MADV_DONTNEED))

Hm I915_GEM_OBJECT_HAS_STRUCT_PAGE happens to be right - shm, userptr and internal. But that would be bad. Neither do I like HAS_BACKING_STORE.

Maybe I915_GEM_OBJECT_IS_SHRINKABLE, fully dumb and explicit?

Regards,

Tvrtko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]