On 12.10.2014 05:24, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 08:31:49PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 05:59:19PM +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote: >>> On 10.10.2014 17:51, Alan Swanson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 12:20 +0900, Michel D?nzer wrote: >>>>> On 09.10.2014 19:22, Alan Swanson wrote: >>>>>> On 2014-10-09 07:02, Michel D?nzer wrote: >>>>>>> From: Michel D?nzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The radeon driver uses placement range restrictions for several reasons, >>>>>>> in particular to make sure BOs in VRAM can be accessed by the CPU, e.g. >>>>>>> during a page fault. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Without this change, TTM could evict other BOs while trying to satisfy >>>>>>> the requested placement, even if the evicted BOs were outside of the >>>>>>> requested placement range. Doing so didn't free up any space in the >>>>>>> requested placement range, so the (potentially high) eviction cost was >>>>>>> incurred for no benefit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nominating for stable because radeon driver changes in 3.17 made this >>>>>>> much more noticeable than before. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84662 >>>>>>> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Michel D?nzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++--- >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>>> >>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>>> I believe you need to "s/place/placement/" over this patch. >>>>> >>>>> The fpfn and lpfn members were moved from struct ttm_placement to a new >>>>> struct ttm_place in f1217ed09f827e42a49ffa6a5aab672aa6f57a65. >>>>> >>>>> If you mean something else, please elaborate. >>>> >>>> This patch failed to build on 3.17.0 so wouldn't be a candidate for >>>> stable unless the currently drm-next only ttm_place patch also goes to >>>> stable (else replace ttm_place with ttm_placements in the patch for >>>> stable)? >>> >>> Right, I guess I should drop the Cc: stable then and submit a manual >>> backport of it to the stable list once it has landed in Linus' tree. >> >> I've thought it's ok to cc: stable a patch - Greg's scripts will send you >> a mail as a nice reminder if the patch fails to apply. At least we >> regularly pull this stunt with i915 patches. Cc'ing Greg for >> clarification. > > Yup, that's fine to do, it's what the scripts are for :)
Okay, thanks guys for the clarification. -- Earthling Michel D?nzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
