On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:26:00PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > @@ -2947,6 +2947,13 @@ i915_gem_execbuffer2_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, 
> > void *data,
> >                         u64_to_user_ptr(args->buffers_ptr);
> >                 unsigned int i;
> >  
> > +               /*
> > +                * Do the call to gen8_canonical_addr() outside the
> > +                * uaccess-enabled region to minimize uaccess exposure.
> > +                */
> > +               for (i = 0; i < args->buffer_count; i++)
> > +                       exec2_list[i].offset = 
> > gen8_canonical_addr(exec2_list[i].offset);
> 
> 
> Another loop over all the objects, where we intentionally try and skip
> unmodified entries? To save 2 instructions from inside the second loop?
> 
> Colour me skeptical.

So are you're saying these arrays can be large and that you have
performance concerns?

-- 
Josh

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to