On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:17:48PM -0700, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:10 AM Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > > - r = ttm_bo_reserve(&bo->tbo, true, false, NULL);
> > > > + r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv, NULL);
> > > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for
> > > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl? In that function, only
> > > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and
> > > ttm_bo_unreserve. I am curious how they keep the BO alive.
> >
> > It can't go away between reserve and unreserve, and I think it also
> > can't be evicted then. Havn't checked how ttm implements that.
> Hm, but the vbuf using the BO outlives the reserve/unreserve section.
> The NO_EVICT flag applies only when the BO is still alive. Someone
> needs to hold a reference to the BO to keep it alive, otherwise the BO
> can go away before the vbuf is retired.
Note that patches 14+15 rework virtio_gpu_transfer_*_ioctl to keep
gem reference until the command is finished and patch 17 drops
virtio_gpu_object_{reserve,unreserve} altogether.
Maybe I should try to reorder the series, then squash 6+17 to reduce
confusion. I suspect that'll cause quite a few conflicts though ...
cheers,
Gerd
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
