On 8/1/22 23:11, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 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().
>
The drm_gem_lru_move_tail_locked() will be needed by DRM-SHMEM shrinker,
BTW.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
