Hi,
On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 13:48 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Since the OOM interrupt directly deals with the binner bo, it doesn't
> > make sense to try and handle it without a binner buffer registered.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c
> > index ffd0a4388752..723dc86b4511 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c
> > @@ -64,6 +64,9 @@ vc4_overflow_mem_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > struct vc4_exec_info *exec;
> > unsigned long irqflags;
> >
> > + if (!bo)
> > + return;
> > +
> > bin_bo_slot = vc4_v3d_get_bin_slot(vc4);
> > if (bin_bo_slot < 0) {
> > DRM_ERROR("Couldn't allocate binner overflow mem\n");
> > --
> > 2.21.0
>
> I don't think this is going to be race-free. You're checking outside of
> a lock, then proceeding to use it even if (in patch 4) the bin BO was in
> the process of being freed during the file close path. Can we put all
> of the overflow process here under the same lock as freeing?
Definitely, sorry I missed that.
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
