Attachment 34228 Details for Bug 26302 – fallback on VRAM memory placement

[patch] fallback on VRAM memory placement

0001-drm-radeon-bo-add-some-fallback-placements-for-VRAM-.patch (text/plain), 2.50 KB, created by Dave Airlie on 2010-03-18 17:38:54 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Dave Airlie

Created: 2010-03-18 17:38:54 UTC

Size: 2.50 KB

patch

obsolete

>From 603c0d777f7d6ce222df8abc74bb003fdecc4506 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
>Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:32:10 +1000
>Subject: [PATCH 1/2] drm/radeon/bo: add some fallback placements for VRAM only objects.
>
>On constrained r100 systems compiz would fail to start due to a lack
>of memory, we can just fallback place the objects rather than completely
>failing it works a lot better.
>
>Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>
>---
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h        |    2 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c |   10 +++++++---
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
>index 72ed251..69585bb 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
>@@ -238,7 +238,9 @@ struct radeon_bo {
> 	struct list_head		list;
> 	/* Protected by tbo.reserved */
> 	u32				placements[3];
>+	u32				busy_placements[3];
> 	struct ttm_placement		placement;
>+	struct ttm_placement		busy_placement;
> 	struct ttm_buffer_object	tbo;
> 	struct ttm_bo_kmap_obj		kmap;
> 	unsigned			pin_count;
>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>index fc9d00a..3580c75 100644
>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c
>@@ -65,15 +65,19 @@ bool radeon_ttm_bo_is_radeon_bo(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo)
> 
> void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain)
> {
>-	u32 c = 0;
>+	u32 c = 0, b = 0;
> 
> 	rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
> 	rbo->placement.lpfn = 0;
> 	rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements;
>-	rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
>+	rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->busy_placements;
> 	if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
> 		rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED |
> 					TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
>+	/* add busy placement to TTM if VRAM is only option */
>+	if (domain == RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {
>+		rbo->busy_placements[b++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
>+	}
> 	if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
> 		rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
> 	if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
>@@ -81,7 +85,7 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain)
> 	if (!c)
> 		rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
> 	rbo->placement.num_placement = c;
>-	rbo->placement.num_busy_placement = c;
>+	rbo->placement.num_busy_placement = b;
> }
> 
> int radeon_bo_create(struct radeon_device *rdev, struct drm_gem_object *gobj,
>-- 
>1.6.6.1
>

Actions: View | Splinter Review

Attachments on bug 26302: 32876 | 32877 | 32878 | 33219 | 33220 | 33665 | 34228 | 34229

Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.