On 11/04/2014 02:31 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Running __mmu_notifier_register() is surprisingly expensive, so let's
not do that unless we have to.

Affects some program startup or what? What is the cost? I would add some notes in the commit for future reference.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
---
  intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
  1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)

diff --git a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
index f2f4fea..addf413 100644
--- a/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
+++ b/intel/intel_bufmgr_gem.c
@@ -935,6 +935,70 @@ drm_intel_gem_bo_alloc_userptr(drm_intel_bufmgr *bufmgr,
        return &bo_gem->bo;
  }

+static bool
+has_userptr(drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *bufmgr_gem)
+{
+       int ret;
+       void *ptr;
+       long pgsz;
+       struct drm_i915_gem_userptr userptr;
+       struct drm_gem_close close_bo;
+
+       pgsz = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
+       assert(pgsz > 0);
+
+       ret = posix_memalign(&ptr, pgsz, pgsz);
+       if (ret) {
+               DBG("Failed to get a page (%ld) for userptr detection!\n",
+                       pgsz);
+               return false;
+       }
+
+       memset(&userptr, 0, sizeof(userptr));
+       userptr.user_ptr = (__u64)(unsigned long)ptr;
+       userptr.user_size = pgsz;
+
+retry:
+       ret = drmIoctl(bufmgr_gem->fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GEM_USERPTR, &userptr);
+       if (ret) {
+               if (errno == ENODEV && userptr.flags == 0) {
+                       userptr.flags = I915_USERPTR_UNSYNCHRONIZED;
+                       goto retry;
+               }
+               free(ptr);
+               return false;
+       }
+
+       close_bo.handle = userptr.handle;
+       ret = drmIoctl(bufmgr_gem->fd, DRM_IOCTL_GEM_CLOSE, &close_bo);
+       free(ptr);
+       if (ret) {
+               fprintf(stderr, "Failed to release test userptr object! (%d) "
+                               "i915 kernel driver may not be sane!\n", errno);
+               return false;
+       }
+
+       return true;
+}
+
+static drm_intel_bo *
+check_bo_alloc_userptr(drm_intel_bufmgr *bufmgr,
+                      const char *name,
+                      void *addr,
+                      uint32_t tiling_mode,
+                      uint32_t stride,
+                      unsigned long size,
+                      unsigned long flags)
+{
+       if (has_userptr((drm_intel_bufmgr_gem *)bufmgr))
+               bufmgr->bo_alloc_userptr = drm_intel_bo_alloc_userptr;

I wouldn't have spotted this - so retroactively compile tested I assume?

Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to