On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 16:33, Thomas Hellström thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com wrote:
Use fast wc memcpy for reading out of wc memory for TTM bo moves.
Cc: Dave Airlie airlied@gmail.com Cc: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com Cc: Daniel Vetter daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c index 912cbe8e60a2..4a7d3d672f9a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
#include <drm/ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h> #include <drm/ttm/ttm_placement.h> +#include <drm/drm_memcpy.h> #include <drm/drm_vma_manager.h> #include <linux/dma-buf-map.h> #include <linux/io.h> @@ -91,6 +92,7 @@ void ttm_move_memcpy(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, const struct ttm_kmap_iter_ops *src_ops = src_iter->ops; struct ttm_tt *ttm = bo->ttm; struct dma_buf_map src_map, dst_map;
bool wc_memcpy; pgoff_t i; /* Single TTM move. NOP */
@@ -114,11 +116,16 @@ void ttm_move_memcpy(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, return; }
wc_memcpy = ((!src_ops->maps_tt || ttm->caching != ttm_cached) &&
Why do we only consider the caching value for the maps_tt case? Or am I misreading this?
drm_has_memcpy_from_wc());
for (i = 0; i < dst_mem->num_pages; ++i) { dst_ops->map_local(dst_iter, &dst_map, i); src_ops->map_local(src_iter, &src_map, i);
if (!src_map.is_iomem && !dst_map.is_iomem) {
if (wc_memcpy) {
drm_memcpy_from_wc_dbm(&dst_map, &src_map, PAGE_SIZE);
Do we need to check the return value here? memcpy_from_wc expects certain address alignment, or is that always guaranteed here? Maybe throw a warning just for paranoia?
} else if (!src_map.is_iomem && !dst_map.is_iomem) { memcpy(dst_map.vaddr, src_map.vaddr, PAGE_SIZE); } else if (!src_map.is_iomem) { dma_buf_map_memcpy_to(&dst_map, src_map.vaddr,
-- 2.31.1