Hi David,
well that additional placement range actually caused a performance problem.
It's only effect is that we check the invisible space twice, which can
burn quite a bunch of CPU cycles during allocation.
Can you somehow easily check for performance regressions?
Regards,
Christian.
Am 07.11.2016 um 03:35 schrieb zhoucm1:
Hi Christian,
I have some time not to track code, I'm not sure if I miss anything.
In my mind, this change was added while doing performance
optimization. If you don't encounter any problem, I'm suggesting not
to change it, we have many regressions(bug and performance) recently.
Regards,
David Zhou
On 2016年11月04日 19:00, Christian König wrote:
From: Christian König <[email protected]>
This only has the effect of scanning the invisible range twice
since the topdown flag is given anyway.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c | 11 -----------
1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
index 6efa8d7..052c1b0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_object.c
@@ -128,17 +128,6 @@ static void amdgpu_ttm_placement_init(struct
amdgpu_device *adev,
if (flags & AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_VRAM_CONTIGUOUS)
lpfn = adev->mc.real_vram_size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
- if (flags & AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_NO_CPU_ACCESS &&
- !(flags & AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED) &&
- adev->mc.visible_vram_size < adev->mc.real_vram_size) {
- places[c].fpfn = visible_pfn;
- places[c].lpfn = lpfn;
- places[c].flags = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC |
- TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED | TTM_PL_FLAG_VRAM |
- TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN;
- c++;
- }
-
places[c].fpfn = 0;
places[c].lpfn = lpfn;
places[c].flags = TTM_PL_FLAG_WC | TTM_PL_FLAG_UNCACHED |
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
