2012/4/21 Jerome Glisse <j.glisse@xxxxxxxxx>: > 2012/4/21 Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> On 21.04.2012 16:08, Jerome Glisse wrote: >>> >>> 2012/4/21 Christian König<deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> >>>> Interesting, I'm pretty sure that I haven't touched the locking order of >>>> the >>>> cs_mutex vs. vm_mutex. >>>> >>>> Maybe it is just some kind of side effect, going to locking into it >>>> anyway. >>>> >>>> Christian. >>>> >>> It's the using, init path take lock in different order than cs path >> >> Well, could you explain to me why the vm code takes cs mutex in the first >> place? >> >> It clearly has it's own mutex and it doesn't looks like that it deals with >> any cs related data anyway. >> >> Christian. > > Lock simplification is on my todo. The issue is that vm manager is protected by > cs_mutex The vm.mutex is specific to each vm it doesn't protect the global vm > management. I didn't wanted to introduce a new global vm mutex as vm activity > is mostly trigger on behalf of cs so i dediced to use the cs mutex. > > That's why non cs path of vm need to take the cs mutex. So if one app is adding a bo, and another doing CS, isn't deadlock a real possibility? I expect the VM code need to take CS mutex earlier then. Dave. _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
