Hi Thomas, actually I was very happy to get rid of that stuff. In the long run I indeed wanted to replace ctx->resv with the ww_acquire_ctx to enable eviction of even more things, but that is a different story. Recursive locking is usually something we should try to avoid. Regards, Christian. Am 15.12.2017 um 08:01 schrieb Thomas Hellstrom: > Roger and Chrisitian, > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but It seems to me like a lot of the recent > changes to ttm_bo.c are to allow recursive reservation object locking > in the case of shared reservation objects, but only in certain > functions and with special arguments so it doesn't look like recursive > locking to the lockdep checker. Wouldn't it be a lot cleaner if we > were to hide all this in a resurrected __ttm_bo_reserve something > along the lines of > > int __ttm_bo_reserve(struct ttm_bo *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx) { >    if (ctx && ctx->resv == bo->resv) { > #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP >        WARN_ON(bo->reserved); > lockdep_assert_held(&ctx->resv); >       ctx->reserve_count++; > bo->reserved = true; > #endif >       return0; >     } else { >        int ret = reservation_object_lock(bo->resv, NULL) ? 0:-EBUSY; > >        if (ret) >          return ret; > #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP >       WARN_ON(bo->reserved); >       bo->reserved = true; > #endif >       return 0; > } > > And similar for tryreserve and unreserve? Perhaps with a > ww_acquire_ctx included somewhere as well... > > /Thomas > > > > > On 12/14/2017 09:10 AM, Roger He wrote: >> Change-Id: I0c6ece0decd18d30ccc94e5c7ca106d351941c62 >> Signed-off-by: Roger He <Hongbo.He at amd.com> >> --- >>  drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 11 +++++------ >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c >> index 098b22e..ba5b486 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c >> @@ -707,7 +707,6 @@ bool ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct >> ttm_buffer_object *bo, >>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_eviction_valuable); >>   static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev, >> -                  struct reservation_object *resv, >>                     uint32_t mem_type, >>                     const struct ttm_place *place, >>                     struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx) >> @@ -722,8 +721,9 @@ static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct >> ttm_bo_device *bdev, >>      spin_lock(&glob->lru_lock); >>      for (i = 0; i < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++i) { >>          list_for_each_entry(bo, &man->lru[i], lru) { >> -           if (bo->resv == resv) { >> -               if (list_empty(&bo->ddestroy)) >> +           if (bo->resv == ctx->resv) { >> +               if (!ctx->allow_reserved_eviction && >> +                   list_empty(&bo->ddestroy)) >>                      continue; >>              } else { >>                  locked = reservation_object_trylock(bo->resv); >> @@ -835,7 +835,7 @@ static int ttm_bo_mem_force_space(struct >> ttm_buffer_object *bo, >>              return ret; >>          if (mem->mm_node) >>              break; >> -       ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, bo->resv, mem_type, place, >> ctx); >> +       ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, mem_type, place, ctx); >>          if (unlikely(ret != 0)) >>              return ret; >>      } while (1); >> @@ -1332,8 +1332,7 @@ static int ttm_bo_force_list_clean(struct >> ttm_bo_device *bdev, >>      for (i = 0; i < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++i) { >>          while (!list_empty(&man->lru[i])) { >>              spin_unlock(&glob->lru_lock); >> -           ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, NULL, mem_type, >> -                         NULL, &ctx); >> +           ret = ttm_mem_evict_first(bdev, mem_type, NULL, &ctx); >>              if (ret) >>                  return ret; >>              spin_lock(&glob->lru_lock); > >