Am 25.01.2017 um 03:56 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
On 25/01/17 12:05 AM, Marek Olšák wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Christian König
<[email protected]> wrote:
Am 24.01.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Samuel Pitoiset:
On 01/24/2017 11:38 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 24.01.2017 11:34, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 01/24/2017 11:31 AM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 24.01.2017 11:25, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
On 01/24/2017 07:39 AM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
On 24/01/17 05:44 AM, Samuel Pitoiset wrote:
Useful when debugging applications which map too much VRAM.
Is the number of mapped buffers really useful, as opposed to the
total
size of buffer mappings? Even if it was the latter though, it doesn't
show which mappings are for BOs in VRAM vs GTT, does it? Also, even
the
total size of mappings of BOs currently in VRAM doesn't directly
reflect
the pressure on the CPU visible part of VRAM — only the BOs which are
actively being accessed by the CPU contribute to that.
It's actually useful to know the number of mapped buffers, but maybe
it
would be better to have two separate counters for GTT and VRAM.
Although
the number of mapped buffers in VRAM is most of the time very high
compared to GTT AFAIK.
I will submit in a follow-up patch, something which reduces the number
of mapped buffers in VRAM (when a BO has been mapped only once). And
this new counter helped me.
Michel's point probably means that reducing the number/size of mapped
VRAM buffers isn't actually that important though.
It seems useful for apps which map more than 256MB of VRAM.
True, if all of that range is actually used by the CPU (which may well
happen, of course). If I understand Michel correctly (and this was news
to me as well), if 1GB of VRAM is mapped, but only 64MB of that are
regularly accessed by the CPU, then the kernel will migrate all of the
rest into non-visible VRAM.
And this can hurt us, for example DXMD maps over 500MB of VRAM. And a
bunch of BOs are only mapped once.
But when they are mapped once that won't be a problem.
Again as Michel noted when a VRAM buffer is mapped it is migrated into the
visible parts of VRAM on access, not on mapping.
In other words you can map all your VRAM buffers and keep them mapped and
that won't hurt anybody.
Are you saying that I can map 2 GB of VRAM and it will all stay in
VRAM and I'll get maximum performance if it's not accessed by the CPU
too much?
Yes, that's how it's supposed to work.
Well there is still the mapping operation itself. E.g. you call mmap()
into the kernel which results into a whole rat tail of sometimes quite
costly operations.
Are you sure it won't have any adverse effects on anything?
That's a pretty big statement. :) Bugs happen.
Yeah, even when all those BOs are only mapped an never accessed you
still use some memory for VMA structures and all the housekeeping in the
kernel.
So it is still a good idea to create mapping only when you need them,
but I doubt it is really beneficial to release them when you don't need
them any more.
Having useless memory mappings certainly must have some negative
effect on something. It doesn't seem like a good idea to have a lot of
mapped memory that doesn't have to be mapped.
I guess e.g. the bookkeeping overhead might become significant with
large numbers of mappings. Maybe the issue Sam has been looking into is
actually related to something like that, not to VRAM?
Yeah, that could indeed become a problem.
Regards,
Christian.
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
