Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-08-09 23:26:13)
@@ -1369,6 +1371,8 @@ struct drm_i915_private { */ resource_size_t stolen_usable_size; /* Total size minus reserved ranges */
struct intel_memory_region *regions[INTEL_MEMORY_UKNOWN];
If there was ever an object to put inside i915_mm, this is sorely the one!
struct intel_uncore uncore; struct i915_virtual_gpu vgpu;@@ -2213,6 +2217,7 @@ IS_SUBPLATFORM(const struct drm_i915_private *i915, #define HAS_IPC(dev_priv) (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->display.has_ipc)
#define HAS_REGION(i915, i) (INTEL_INFO(i915)->memory_regions & (i)) +#define HAS_LMEM(i915) HAS_REGION(i915, REGION_LMEM)
#define HAS_GT_UC(dev_priv) (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->has_gt_uc)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_region_lmem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_region_lmem.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..ca906d1ff631 --- /dev/null +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_region_lmem.c @@ -0,0 +1,48 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT +/*
- Copyright © 2019 Intel Corporation
- */
+#include "i915_drv.h" +#include "intel_memory_region.h" +#include "gem/i915_gem_lmem.h" +#include "gem/i915_gem_region.h" +#include "intel_region_lmem.h"
+static struct drm_i915_gem_object * +lmem_create_object(struct intel_memory_region *mem,
resource_size_t size,unsigned int flags)+{
struct drm_i915_private *i915 = mem->i915;struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;unsigned int cache_level;if (flags & I915_BO_ALLOC_CONTIGUOUS)size = roundup_pow_of_two(size);
? I would say that is not your decision to make. The flag says that the allocation should one contiguous block.
if (size > BIT(mem->mm.max_order) * mem->mm.chunk_size)return ERR_PTR(-E2BIG);obj = i915_gem_object_alloc();if (!obj)return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);drm_gem_private_object_init(&i915->drm, &obj->base, size);i915_gem_object_init(obj, &i915_gem_lmem_obj_ops);obj->read_domains = I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU | I915_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT;
Is it really? Device local memory starts off inside the CPU cache?
cache_level = HAS_LLC(i915) ? I915_CACHE_LLC : I915_CACHE_NONE;
This seems to be a false generalisation. You should be asking the memory region?
Besides, the current thinking is not to mark any object as cacheable until the user commands it. -Chris