Buffer object initialization may be part of a drm_exec transaction.
Rather than using dma_resv_trylock, use drm_exec_trylock_obj().
RFC: This patch indicates to me that we should avoid the -ENOMEM failure
for drm_exec_trylock, Could probably use a sleeping lock here without
problems.
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Somalapuram Amaranath <Amaranath.Somalapuram@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 8706502edcb1..70af66b5b86e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -942,10 +942,17 @@ int ttm_bo_init_reserved(struct ttm_device *bdev, struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
/* passed reservation objects should already be locked,
* since otherwise lockdep will be angered in radeon.
*/
- if (!resv)
- WARN_ON(!dma_resv_trylock(bo->base.resv));
- else
+ if (!resv) {
+ if (ctx->exec) {
+ ret = drm_exec_trylock_obj(ctx->exec, &bo->base);
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_put;
+ } else {
+ WARN_ON(!dma_resv_trylock(bo->base.resv));
+ }
+ } else {
dma_resv_assert_held(resv);
+ }
ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, placement, ctx);
if (unlikely(ret))
@@ -954,8 +961,12 @@ int ttm_bo_init_reserved(struct ttm_device *bdev, struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
return 0;
err_unlock:
- if (!resv)
- dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ if (!resv) {
+ if (ctx->exec)
+ drm_exec_unlock_obj(ctx->exec, &bo->base);
+ else
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ }
err_put:
ttm_bo_put(bo);
--
2.44.0
