Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:56:28AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 29/04/16 11:39, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:26:45AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >>On 29/04/16 11:18, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:49AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On 29/04/16 11:39, Chris Wilson wrote: On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:26:45AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 29/04/16 11:18, Chris Wilson wrote: On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:49AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: I don't get it - if we are adding something why not add it in a way that makes it

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:26:45AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 29/04/16 11:18, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:49AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>I don't get it - if we are adding something why not add it in a way > >>that makes it clear and self-contained - what

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On 29/04/16 11:18, Chris Wilson wrote: On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:49AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: I don't get it - if we are adding something why not add it in a way that makes it clear and self-contained - what is the downside of what I propose to meet such resistance? You're

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:06:49AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > I don't get it - if we are adding something why not add it in a way > that makes it clear and self-contained - what is the downside of > what I propose to meet such resistance? You're suggesting to add a field I'm not going to use.

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On 28/04/16 11:24, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:30:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 26/04/16 10:44, Chris Wilson wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:51:09PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 25/04/16 11:35, Ankitprasad Sharma wrote: On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 15:59 +0100,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:30:32AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 26/04/16 10:44, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:51:09PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >>On 25/04/16 11:35, Ankitprasad Sharma wrote: > >>>On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 15:59 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On 26/04/16 10:44, Chris Wilson wrote: On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:51:09PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 25/04/16 11:35, Ankitprasad Sharma wrote: On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 15:59 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 21/04/16 15:46, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:04:52PM +0100,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 03:51:09PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 25/04/16 11:35, Ankitprasad Sharma wrote: > >On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 15:59 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >>On 21/04/16 15:46, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:04:52PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On 25/04/16 11:35, Ankitprasad Sharma wrote: On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 15:59 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 21/04/16 15:46, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:04:52PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: Hi, On 20/04/16 12:17, ankitprasad.r.sha...@intel.com wrote: +

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 15:59 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > On 21/04/16 15:46, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:04:52PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 20/04/16 12:17, ankitprasad.r.sha...@intel.com wrote: > >>> + mutex_unlock(>struct_mutex); > >>> + > >>>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On 21/04/16 15:46, Chris Wilson wrote: On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:04:52PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: Hi, On 20/04/16 12:17, ankitprasad.r.sha...@intel.com wrote: + mutex_unlock(>struct_mutex); + + seq_printf(m, "Total size of the GTT: %llu bytes\n", +

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 03:04:52PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > Hi, > > On 20/04/16 12:17, ankitprasad.r.sha...@intel.com wrote: > >+mutex_unlock(>struct_mutex); > >+ > >+seq_printf(m, "Total size of the GTT: %llu bytes\n", > >+ arg.aper_size); > >+seq_printf(m,

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

Hi, On 20/04/16 12:17, ankitprasad.r.sha...@intel.com wrote: From: Ankitprasad Sharma Patch is mostly Rodrigo's, right? So I assumed he approved the authorship transfer. When constructing a batchbuffer, it is sometimes crucial to know the largest hole

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

Hi, [auto build test WARNING on drm-intel/for-linux-next] [also build test WARNING on next-20160420] [cannot apply to v4.6-rc4] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improving the system] url:

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/12] drm/i915: Extend GET_APERTURE ioctl to report available map space

From: Ankitprasad Sharma When constructing a batchbuffer, it is sometimes crucial to know the largest hole into which we can fit a fenceable buffer (for example when handling very large objects on gen2 and gen3). This depends on the fragmentation of pinned buffers