Am 26.12.21 um 21:59 schrieb Arunpravin:
Hi Thomas
On 16/12/21 5:05 pm, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
Hi
Am 01.12.21 um 17:39 schrieb Arunpravin:
Make drm_buddy_alloc a single function to handle range allocation and non-range allocation demands
Implemented a new function alloc_range() which allocates the requested power-of-two block comply with range limitations
Moved order computation and memory alignment logic from i915 driver to drm buddy
v2: merged below changes to keep the build unbroken - drm_buddy_alloc_range() becomes obsolete and may be removed - enable ttm range allocation (fpfn / lpfn) support in i915 driver - apply enhanced drm_buddy_alloc() function to i915 driver
v3(Matthew Auld): - Fix alignment issues and remove unnecessary list_empty check - add more validation checks for input arguments - make alloc_range() block allocations as bottom-up - optimize order computation logic - replace uint64_t with u64, which is preferred in the kernel
v4(Matthew Auld): - keep drm_buddy_alloc_range() function implementation for generic actual range allocations - keep alloc_range() implementation for end bias allocations
Signed-off-by: Arunpravin Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com
<SNIP>
+#define DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION (1 << 0)
- struct drm_buddy_block { #define DRM_BUDDY_HEADER_OFFSET GENMASK_ULL(63, 12) #define DRM_BUDDY_HEADER_STATE GENMASK_ULL(11, 10)
@@ -132,12 +139,11 @@ int drm_buddy_init(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, u64 size, u64 chunk_size);
void drm_buddy_fini(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm);
-struct drm_buddy_block * -drm_buddy_alloc(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, unsigned int order);
Just a style issue. The structure is called drm_buddy_mm. For consistency, I like to suggest to name all the public interfaces and defines drm_buddy_mm_* instead of just drm_buddy_*.
Thanks for the suggestion, I think renaming drm_buddy_* to drm_buddy_mm_* creates a long name for the public interfaces, for instance - drm_buddy_mm_alloc_blocks(), discussing the style issue internally @Matthew, @christian - please let me know your opinion
I would prefer drm_buddy as prefix as well and I think we could rather drop the _mm postfix from the structure here.
Cause what we try to manage is not necessary memory, but rather address space.
Christian.
-int drm_buddy_alloc_range(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm,
struct list_head *blocks,u64 start, u64 size);+int drm_buddy_alloc(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm,
u64 start, u64 end, u64 size,u64 min_page_size,struct list_head *blocks,unsigned long flags);void drm_buddy_free(struct drm_buddy_mm *mm, struct drm_buddy_block *block);
I'd call those *_alloc_blocks() and _free_blocks(). Right now it sounds as if they allocate and free instances of drm_buddy_mm.
can we call those drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() and drm_buddy_free_blocks() Does this make sense?
Best regards Thomas