From: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro - silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com --- drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0; - rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT; + rbo->placement.lpfn = 0; rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements; - if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) + if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) { + rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM; - if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) + } + if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) { + rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size >> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT; - if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) + } + if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) { + /* 4G limit for CPU domain */ + rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF >> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM; - if (!c) + } + if (!c) { + /* 4G limit for CPU domain */ + rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF >> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM; + } rbo->placement.num_placement = c; rbo->placement.num_busy_placement = c; } @@ -91,7 +101,8 @@ int radeon_bo_create(struct radeon_device *rdev, struct drm_gem_object *gobj, { struct radeon_bo *bo; enum ttm_bo_type type; - int page_align = roundup(byte_align, PAGE_SIZE) >> PAGE_SHIFT; + unsigned long page_align = roundup(byte_align, PAGE_SIZE) >> PAGE_SHIFT; + unsigned long max_size = 0; int r;
if (unlikely(rdev->mman.bdev.dev_mapping == NULL)) { @@ -104,6 +115,17 @@ int radeon_bo_create(struct radeon_device *rdev, struct drm_gem_object *gobj, } *bo_ptr = NULL;
+ /* maximun bo size is the minimun btw visible vram and gtt size */ + max_size = rdev->mc.visible_vram_size; + if (max_size > rdev->mc.gtt_size) { + max_size = rdev->mc.gtt_size; + } + if ((page_align << PAGE_SHIFT) >= max_size) { + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s:%d alloc size %ldM bigger than %ldMb limit\n", + __func__, __LINE__, page_align >> (20 - PAGE_SHIFT), max_size >> 20); + return -ENOMEM; + } + retry: bo = kzalloc(sizeof(struct radeon_bo), GFP_KERNEL); if (bo == NULL)
On Fre, 2010-11-19 at 16:34 -0500, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro
- silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = 0; rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {
rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
- }
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {
rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
- }
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {
/* 4G limit for CPU domain */rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF >> PAGE_SHIFT);
- if (!c)
- }
- if (!c) {
/* 4G limit for CPU domain */rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF >> PAGE_SHIFT);- }
I don't think taxing the maximum is the right thing to do: If domain is (RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) and VRAM doesn't happen to be the same size as GTT, lpfn will end up larger than one of them.
AFAICT radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() should just set lpfn to 0 (i.e. unrestricted), the callers that need it to be non-0 already set it afterwards.
Out of curiosity, where does the 4G limit come from?
@@ -104,6 +115,17 @@ int radeon_bo_create(struct radeon_device *rdev, struct drm_gem_object *gobj, } *bo_ptr = NULL;
- /* maximun bo size is the minimun btw visible vram and gtt size */
- max_size = rdev->mc.visible_vram_size;
- if (max_size > rdev->mc.gtt_size) {
max_size = rdev->mc.gtt_size;- }
max_size = min(rdev->mc.visible_vram_size, rdev->mc.gtt_size);
Except I think this should actually be max(...).
- if ((page_align << PAGE_SHIFT) >= max_size) {
printk(KERN_WARNING "%s:%d alloc size %ldM bigger than %ldMb limit\n",__func__, __LINE__, page_align >> (20 - PAGE_SHIFT), max_size >> 20);return -ENOMEM;- }
Maybe this should be rate-limited, or userspace can spam dmesg.
2010/11/22 Michel Dänzer michel@daenzer.net:
On Fre, 2010-11-19 at 16:34 -0500, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro - silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = 0;
rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
- }
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
- }
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF >> PAGE_SHIFT);
rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- if (!c)
- }
- if (!c) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF >> PAGE_SHIFT);
rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- }
I don't think taxing the maximum is the right thing to do: If domain is (RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) and VRAM doesn't happen to be the same size as GTT, lpfn will end up larger than one of them.
AFAICT radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() should just set lpfn to 0 (i.e. unrestricted), the callers that need it to be non-0 already set it afterwards.
Out of curiosity, where does the 4G limit come from?
From my hat, but iirc ttm limit things to 1G anyway (vm size for
mapping object in drm file and iirc we will report error if we can't find a mapping for userspace object). I guess at one point we should start thinking about what we want to do on that front.
Doing a v3.
Cheers, Jerome
2010/11/22 Jerome Glisse j.glisse@gmail.com:
2010/11/22 Michel Dänzer michel@daenzer.net:
On Fre, 2010-11-19 at 16:34 -0500, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro - silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse jglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = 0;
rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
- }
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size >> PAGE_SHIFT);
rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
- }
- if (domain & RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF >> PAGE_SHIFT);
rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- if (!c)
- }
- if (!c) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF >> PAGE_SHIFT);
rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- }
I don't think taxing the maximum is the right thing to do: If domain is (RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) and VRAM doesn't happen to be the same size as GTT, lpfn will end up larger than one of them.
AFAICT radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() should just set lpfn to 0 (i.e. unrestricted), the callers that need it to be non-0 already set it afterwards.
Out of curiosity, where does the 4G limit come from?
From my hat, but iirc ttm limit things to 1G anyway (vm size for mapping object in drm file and iirc we will report error if we can't find a mapping for userspace object). I guess at one point we should start thinking about what we want to do on that front.
FWIW, r1xx-r5xx have a 32 bit MC address space while r6xx+ have a 40 bit address space (with certain limitations on 6xx/7xx).
Alex
Doing a v3.
Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 11/22/2010 06:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
2010/11/22 Michel Dänzermichel@daenzer.net:
On Fre, 2010-11-19 at 16:34 -0500, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro - silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>> PAGE_SHIFT;
rbo->placement.lpfn = 0; rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
}if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
}if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {/* 4G limit for CPU domain */rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
if (!c)
}if (!c) {/* 4G limit for CPU domain */rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn, 0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;}I don't think taxing the maximum is the right thing to do: If domain is (RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) and VRAM doesn't happen to be the same size as GTT, lpfn will end up larger than one of them.
AFAICT radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() should just set lpfn to 0 (i.e. unrestricted), the callers that need it to be non-0 already set it afterwards.
Out of curiosity, where does the 4G limit come from?
From my hat, but iirc ttm limit things to 1G anyway (vm size for
mapping object in drm file and iirc we will report error if we can't find a mapping for userspace object). I guess at one point we should start thinking about what we want to do on that front.
That limit is taken from *my* hat. Nothing prevents us to increase that limit to whatever.
/Thomas
Doing a v3.
Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Thomas Hellstrom thomas@shipmail.org wrote:
On 11/22/2010 06:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
2010/11/22 Michel Dänzermichel@daenzer.net:
On Fre, 2010-11-19 at 16:34 -0500, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro - silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>>
PAGE_SHIFT;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = 0;
rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn,
(unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
- }
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn,
(unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
- }
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn,
0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- if (!c)
- }
- if (!c) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn,
0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- }
I don't think taxing the maximum is the right thing to do: If domain is (RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) and VRAM doesn't happen to be the same size as GTT, lpfn will end up larger than one of them.
AFAICT radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() should just set lpfn to 0 (i.e. unrestricted), the callers that need it to be non-0 already set it afterwards.
Out of curiosity, where does the 4G limit come from?
From my hat, but iirc ttm limit things to 1G anyway (vm size for
mapping object in drm file and iirc we will report error if we can't find a mapping for userspace object). I guess at one point we should start thinking about what we want to do on that front.
That limit is taken from *my* hat. Nothing prevents us to increase that limit to whatever.
/Thomas
I think we can at most have 3G as the lower space is use by old drm stuff iirc.
Cheers, Jerome
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Jerome Glisse j.glisse@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Thomas Hellstrom thomas@shipmail.org wrote:
On 11/22/2010 06:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
2010/11/22 Michel Dänzermichel@daenzer.net:
On Fre, 2010-11-19 at 16:34 -0500, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro - silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>>
PAGE_SHIFT;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = 0;
rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn,
(unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
- }
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn,
(unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
- }
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn,
0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- if (!c)
- }
- if (!c) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn,
0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- }
I don't think taxing the maximum is the right thing to do: If domain is (RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) and VRAM doesn't happen to be the same size as GTT, lpfn will end up larger than one of them.
AFAICT radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() should just set lpfn to 0 (i.e. unrestricted), the callers that need it to be non-0 already set it afterwards.
Out of curiosity, where does the 4G limit come from?
From my hat, but iirc ttm limit things to 1G anyway (vm size for
mapping object in drm file and iirc we will report error if we can't find a mapping for userspace object). I guess at one point we should start thinking about what we want to do on that front.
That limit is taken from *my* hat. Nothing prevents us to increase that limit to whatever.
/Thomas
I think we can at most have 3G as the lower space is use by old drm stuff iirc.
We already sell cards with 4 GB of vram.
Alex
Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 11/22/2010 06:31 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 11/22/2010 06:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
2010/11/22 Michel Dänzermichel@daenzer.net:
On Fre, 2010-11-19 at 16:34 -0500, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro - silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>>PAGE_SHIFT;
rbo->placement.lpfn = 0; rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {rbo->placement.lpfn =max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
}if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {rbo->placement.lpfn =max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn, (unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
}if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {/* 4G limit for CPU domain */rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn,0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
if (!c)
}if (!c) {/* 4G limit for CPU domain */rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn,0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
}I don't think taxing the maximum is the right thing to do: If domain is (RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) and VRAM doesn't happen to be the same size as GTT, lpfn will end up larger than one of them.
AFAICT radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() should just set lpfn to 0 (i.e. unrestricted), the callers that need it to be non-0 already set it afterwards.
Out of curiosity, where does the 4G limit come from?
From my hat, but iirc ttm limit things to 1G anyway (vm size for
mapping object in drm file and iirc we will report error if we can't find a mapping for userspace object). I guess at one point we should start thinking about what we want to do on that front.
That limit is taken from *my* hat. Nothing prevents us to increase that limit to whatever.
/Thomas
Hmm. Did you guys ever run into trouble with this? Looking at the code, it seems the current limit is not 1GB but 1TB? (0x10000000 << PAGE_SHIFT)
/Thomas
Doing a v3.
Cheers, Jerome _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Thomas Hellstrom thomas@shipmail.org wrote:
On 11/22/2010 06:31 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
On 11/22/2010 06:07 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
2010/11/22 Michel Dänzermichel@daenzer.net:
On Fre, 2010-11-19 at 16:34 -0500, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
From: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
Forbid allocating buffer bigger than visible VRAM or GTT, also properly set lpfn field.
v2 - use max macro - silence warning
Signed-off-by: Jerome Glissejglisse@redhat.com
drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c index 1d06774..c2fa64c 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_object.c @@ -69,18 +69,28 @@ void radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain(struct radeon_bo *rbo, u32 domain) u32 c = 0;
rbo->placement.fpfn = 0;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>>
PAGE_SHIFT;
- rbo->placement.lpfn = 0;
rbo->placement.placement = rbo->placements; rbo->placement.busy_placement = rbo->placements;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM)
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn,
(unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.active_vram_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT)
- }
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) {
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max((unsigned)rbo->placement.lpfn,
(unsigned)rbo->rdev->mc.gtt_size>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_TT;
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU)
- }
- if (domain& RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn,
0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- if (!c)
- }
- if (!c) {
- /* 4G limit for CPU domain */
- rbo->placement.lpfn = max(rbo->placement.lpfn,
0xFFFFFFFF>> PAGE_SHIFT); rbo->placements[c++] = TTM_PL_MASK_CACHING | TTM_PL_FLAG_SYSTEM;
- }
I don't think taxing the maximum is the right thing to do: If domain is (RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_VRAM | RADEON_GEM_DOMAIN_GTT) and VRAM doesn't happen to be the same size as GTT, lpfn will end up larger than one of them.
AFAICT radeon_ttm_placement_from_domain() should just set lpfn to 0 (i.e. unrestricted), the callers that need it to be non-0 already set it afterwards.
Out of curiosity, where does the 4G limit come from?
From my hat, but iirc ttm limit things to 1G anyway (vm size for
mapping object in drm file and iirc we will report error if we can't find a mapping for userspace object). I guess at one point we should start thinking about what we want to do on that front.
That limit is taken from *my* hat. Nothing prevents us to increase that limit to whatever.
/Thomas
Hmm. Did you guys ever run into trouble with this? Looking at the code, it seems the current limit is not 1GB but 1TB? (0x10000000 << PAGE_SHIFT)
/Thomas
No never run into it, i also wrongly parsed the limit or my memory of it wasn't good.
Cheers, Jerome
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Alex Deucher -
Jerome Glisse -
jglisse＠redhat.com -
Michel Dänzer -
Thomas Hellstrom