[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] drm/radeon: Add RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS BO creation flag

[Alex Deucher]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Christian König
<deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote:
> Am 28.08.2014 um 08:56 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>
>> From: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com>
>>
>> This flag is a hint that userspace expects the BO to be accessed by the
>> CPU. We can use that hint to prevent such BOs from ever being stored in
>> the CPU inaccessible part of VRAM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com>
>
>
> This patch is Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>

Applied to my -next tree.

>
> I think we need a similar negative flags as well, e.g.
> RADEON_GEM_NO_CPU_ACCESS.
>
> This way we can stop forcing buffers into the visible VRAM while pinning
> them for scanout.


How about the attached patch?

Alex

>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>   include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h          |  2 ++
>>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> index dc74cc5..908ea541 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>> @@ -143,7 +143,12 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct
>> radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain)
>>         for (i = 0; i < c; ++i) {
>>                 rbo->placements[i].fpfn = 0;
>> -               rbo->placements[i].lpfn = 0;
>> +               if ((rbo->flags & RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS) &&
>> +                   (rbo->placements[i].flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM))
>> +                       rbo->placements[i].lpfn =
>> +                               rbo->rdev->mc.visible_vram_size >>
>> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> +               else
>> +                       rbo->placements[i].lpfn = 0;
>>         }
>>         /*
>> @@ -151,7 +156,9 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo
>> *rbo, u32 domain)
>>          * improve fragmentation quality.
>>          * 512kb was measured as the most optimal number.
>>          */
>> -       if (rbo->tbo.mem.size > 512 * 1024) {
>> +       if (!((rbo->flags & RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS) &&
>> +             (rbo->placements[i].flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM)) &&
>> +           rbo->tbo.mem.size > 512 * 1024) {
>>                 for (i = 0; i < c; i++) {
>>                         rbo->placements[i].flags |= TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN;
>>                 }
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h
>> index 509b2d7..bf0067b 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/drm/radeon_drm.h
>> @@ -799,6 +799,8 @@ struct drm_radeon_gem_info {
>>   #define RADEON_GEM_NO_BACKING_STORE   (1 << 0)
>>   #define RADEON_GEM_GTT_UC             (1 << 1)
>>   #define RADEON_GEM_GTT_WC             (1 << 2)
>> +/* BO is expected to be accessed by the CPU */
>> +#define RADEON_GEM_CPU_ACCESS          (1 << 3)
>>     struct drm_radeon_gem_create {
>>         uint64_t        size;
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-drm-radeon-add-RADEON_GEM_NO_CPU_ACCESS-BO-creation-.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 1902 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20140828/cf6d8a9f/attachment.patch>