On 8/1/22 23:00, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 12:41 PM Dmitry Osipenko
> <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/26/22 20:50, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> +/**
>>> + * drm_gem_lru_remove - remove object from whatever LRU it is in
>>> + *
>>> + * If the object is currently in any LRU, remove it.
>>> + *
>>> + * @obj: The GEM object to remove from current LRU
>>> + */
>>> +void
>>> +drm_gem_lru_remove(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
>>> +{
>>> + struct drm_gem_lru *lru = obj->lru;
>>> +
>>> + if (!lru)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(lru->lock);
>>> + lru_remove(obj);
>>> + mutex_unlock(lru->lock);
>>> +}
>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_lru_remove);
>>
>> I made a preliminary port of the DRM-SHMEM shrinker on top of the the
>> latest version of dma-buf locking convention and yours LRU patches. It
>> all works good, the only thing that is missing for the DRM-SHMEM
>> shrinker is the drm_gem_lru_remove_locked().
>>
>> What about to add a locked variant of drm_gem_lru_remove()?
>
> Sounds fine to me.. the only reason it didn't exist yet was because it
> wasn't needed yet..
There is no use for the drm_gem_lru_move_tail_locked() as well, you're
not using it in the MSM driver. Hence I thought it might be good to add
the drm_gem_lru_remove_locked(), or maybe the
drm_gem_lru_move_tail_locked() should be dropped then?
> I can respin w/ an addition of a _locked() version, or you can add it
> on top in your patchset. Either is fine by me
The either option is fine by me too. If you'll keep the unused
drm_gem_lru_move_tail_locked(), then will be nice to add
drm_gem_lru_remove_locked().
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
