On to, 2016-08-04 at 11:42 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 01:36:24PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > > > On ma, 2016-08-01 at 19:22 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > We don't need to incur the overhead of checking whether the object is > > > pinned prior to changing its madvise. If the object is pinned, the > > > madvise will not take effect until it is unpinned and so we cannot free > > > the pages being pointed at by hardware. Marking a pinned object with > > > allocated pages as DONTNEED will not trigger any undue warnings. The check > > > is therefore superfluous, and by removing it we can remove a linear walk > > > over all the vma the object has. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 6 ------ > > > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > index 51ec5cd1c6ca..4b8a391912bc 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > > @@ -3853,11 +3853,6 @@ i915_gem_madvise_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, > > > void *data, > > > goto unlock; > > > } > > > > > > - if (i915_gem_obj_is_pinned(obj)) { > > > - ret = -EINVAL; > > > - goto out; > > > - } > > > - > > Does not this change our ABI too? > Yes. It relaxes an immediate failure condition and enforces it later. >
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]> But might want to also ping for A-b from Daniel? Regards, Joonas > Anyone who tried to purge the scanout object now has their BUG hidden. > -Chris > -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
