On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 12:53:07PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 10:50:48AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:28:47AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > It's supported now! Spotted while reviewing Chris' patch to add a > > > release hook. > > > > > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 11 +++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > > index f74b7d06ec01..4ec61ac27477 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c > > > @@ -323,9 +323,8 @@ void drm_minor_release(struct drm_minor *minor) > > > * historical baggage. Hence use the reference counting provided by > > > * drm_dev_ref() and drm_dev_unref() only carefully. > > > * > > > - * Also note that embedding of &drm_device is currently not (yet) supported (but > > > - * it would be easy to add). Drivers can store driver-private data in the > > > - * dev_priv field of &drm_device. > > > + * It is recommended that drivers embed struct &drm_device into their own device > > > + * structure, which is supported through drm_dev_init(). > > > */ > > > > > > /** > > > @@ -462,7 +461,11 @@ static void drm_fs_inode_free(struct inode *inode) > > > * Note that for purely virtual devices @parent can be NULL. > > > * > > > * Drivers that do not want to allocate their own device struct > > > - * embedding struct &drm_device can call drm_dev_alloc() instead. > > > + * embedding struct &drm_device can call drm_dev_alloc() instead. For drivers > > > + * that do embed struct &drm_device it must be placed first in the overall > > > + * structure, and the overall structure must be allocated using kmalloc(): The > > > + * drm core's release function unconditionally calls kfree() on the @dev pointer > > > + * when the final reference is released. > > > > Hmm, the privates are getting pretty big (drm_i915_private fits inside > > malloc-32678). We should start considering using drm_free_large() instead > > as that more or less work transparently and allows fallback to vmalloc. > > Yeah, I wondered whether your new ->release hook should be the very last > thing in drm_dev_release, and that it would replace the final kfree. Then > we could do custom stuff in drivers that have an oversized dev struct ;-) Also considered that, placing it first helped with the onion of dev = kmalloc() drm_dev_init(dev, &driver); i915_driver_init(dev); ... So we would teardown i915, then drm, then free. For now saying that it can either be kmalloc or vmalloc and having if (is_virt) vfree() else kfree() should suffice. That is until we start allocating new devices so regularly that they want a dedicated per-cpu slab ;) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
