On 9/15/23 11:46, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>> -static int drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
>> +static int
>> +drm_gem_shmem_acquire_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem, bool init)
>> {
>> struct drm_gem_object *obj = &shmem->base;
>> struct page **pages;
>>
>> dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);
>>
>> - if (refcount_inc_not_zero(&shmem->pages_use_count))
>> + if (shmem->madv < 0) {
>> + drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, shmem->pages);
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (shmem->pages) {
>> + drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, !shmem->evicted);
>> return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, !(init ^ refcount_read(&shmem->pages_use_count))))
>> + return -EINVAL;
> OOC, why do we care? Is there any difference between initial and re-pin
> that make the page allocation impossible? Feels like, if there's a
> check to do, it should be done in the caller instead, and you can drop
> the init param here.
This is a sanity check that addresses additional refcnt tracking
complexity imposed by shrinker.
This function is used by both init and re-pin that is invoked from
several places in the code. It's not trivial to move that check to the
callers.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
