On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 17:04:57 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> Sorry for chiming in only now :-/.
>
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 05:26:52 +0300
> Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > And new pages_pin_count field to struct drm_gem_shmem_object that will
> > determine whether pages are evictable by memory shrinker. The pages will
> > be evictable only when pages_pin_count=0. This patch prepares code for
> > addition of the memory shrinker that will utilize the new field.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 7 +++++++
> > include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h | 9 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > index 4da9c9c39b9a..81d61791f874 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static int drm_gem_shmem_pin_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> > drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, obj->import_attach);
> >
> > ret = drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(shmem);
> > + if (!ret)
> > + shmem->pages_pin_count++;
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> > @@ -289,7 +291,12 @@ static void drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >
> > drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, obj->import_attach);
> >
> > + if (drm_WARN_ON_ONCE(obj->dev, !shmem->pages_pin_count))
> > + return;
> > +
> > drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(shmem);
> > +
> > + shmem->pages_pin_count--;
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h
> > index 20ddcd799df9..7d823c9fc480 100644
> > --- a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h
> > @@ -39,6 +39,15 @@ struct drm_gem_shmem_object {
> > */
> > unsigned int pages_use_count;
> >
> > + /**
> > + * @pages_pin_count:
> > + *
> > + * Reference count on the pinned pages table.
> > + * The pages allowed to be evicted by memory shrinker
> > + * only when the count is zero.
> > + */
> > + unsigned int pages_pin_count;
>
> s/pages_pin_count/pin_count/ ?
>
> And do we really need both pages_pin_count and pages_use_count. Looks
> like they both serve the same purpose, with one exception:
> pages_use_count is also incremented in the get_pages_sgt_locked() path,
> but you probably don't want it to prevent GEM eviction. Assuming
> your goal with this pin_count field is to check if a GEM object is
> evictable, it can be done with something like
>
> bool
> drm_gem_shmem_is_evictable_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> {
> dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);
>
> return shmem->pages_use_count == (shmem->sgt ? 1 : 0);
> }
>
> I mean, I'm not against renaming pages_use_count into pin_count, but,
> unless I'm missing something, I don't see a good reason to keep both.
My bad, I think I found one place calling drm_gem_shmem_get_pages()
where we want pin_count and pages_use_count to differ:
drm_gem_shmem_mmap(). We certainly don't want userspace mappings to
prevent eviction.
