On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 03:37:22 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
drm_gem_shmem_acquire_pages() is called twice, once with init=false,
once with init=true. If you really care about this check, it can
be moved to the callers so
1/ it's clearer (the XOR operation between init and refcount to check if
refcount is zero on init and non-zero otherwise is convoluted)
2/ it doesn't leak to the function whose purpose it to [re-]acquire
pages
