[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 0/9] Prereqs for TTM accelerated migration

[Thomas Hellström]

On 6/9/21 2:20 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On 09/06/2021 13:16, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>
>> On 6/9/21 1:48 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 08:34:27AM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
>>>> A couple of patches from Chris which implement pipelined migration and
>>>> clears by atomically writing the PTEs in place before performing the
>>>> actual blit.
>>>>
>>>> Some ww utilities mainly for the accompanying selftests added by 
>>>> Thomas,
>>>> as well as modified the above patches for ww locking- and lmem 
>>>> support.
>>>>
>>>> The actual hook up to the i915 ttm backend is being worked on and not
>>>> included yet, so this is considered to be an early review opportunity.
>>>>
>>>> v2:
>>>> - A couple of minor style fixes pointed out by Matthew Auld
>>>> - Export and use intel_engine_destroy_pinned_context() to address a
>>>> ls   CI warning / failure.
>>> Just to check my understanding of the plan: These are the new windowed
>>> clear/blt functions which we plan to use everywhere, because less nasty
>>> locking implications? And the clear/blt we currently have in 
>>> upstream will
>>> be replaced?
>>
>> Yes. These are for LMEM clearing and migration. It looks to me like 
>> the other ones we have in upstream are actually unused except for 
>> selftests. We're actually using CPU clearing for now.
>>
>>>
>>> If so would be nice if this patch set includes that replacement work (I
>>> think right now all we have is the clear for lmem), including 
>>> updating of
>>> selftests and stuff like that. Just to avoid having two ways to do the
>>> same thing in the driver.
>>
>> OK, I'll have a look at stripping the existing code. If we need it 
>> moving forward, we can always re-add.
>
> Some low hanging fruit would be all the client_blt stuff which can for 
> sure be deleted now.

What has the client_blt stuff been used for?

In any case, I need 25 commits for commit access to be granted.

/Thomas