On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 01:16:13PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
Op 2021-05-26 om 18:37 schreef Daniel Vetter:
Media userspace was the last userspace to still use them, and they converted now too:
https://github.com/intel/media-driver/commit/144020c37770083974bedf59902b70b...
This means no reason anymore to make relocations faster than they've been for the first 9 years of gem. This code was added in
commit 7dd4f6729f9243bd7046c6f04c107a456bda38eb Author: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Date: Fri Jun 16 15:05:24 2017 +0100
drm/i915: Async GPU relocation processingFurthermore there's pretty strong indications it's buggy, since the code to use it by default as the only option had to be reverted:
commit ad5d95e4d538737ed3fa25493777decf264a3011 Author: Dave Airlie airlied@redhat.com Date: Tue Sep 8 15:41:17 2020 +1000
Revert "drm/i915/gem: Async GPU relocations only"This code just disables gpu relocations, leaving the garbage collection for later patches and more importantly, much less confusing diff. Also given how much headaches this code has caused in the past, letting this soak for a bit seems justified.
Cc: Jon Bloomfield jon.bloomfield@intel.com Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@intel.com Cc: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Cc: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com Cc: Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch Cc: "Thomas Hellström" thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com Cc: Matthew Auld matthew.auld@intel.com Cc: Lionel Landwerlin lionel.g.landwerlin@intel.com Cc: Dave Airlie airlied@redhat.com Cc: Jason Ekstrand jason@jlekstrand.net
.../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 43 ++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com
Note that a lot of complexity may be removed with gpu relocations gone. Some igt tests might also start to fail, as they expect relocations to complete asynchronously.
Yeah I have the kernel side patch for that, at least in the execbuf code + selftests. For igt I'm wawiting on CI to tell me what I all need to look at and decide what to do with it.
Is it kept in case we need to revive it?
I don't want to revive it, but I want to split the huge code changes from the functional changes at least. -Daniel