On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 16:30 +0200, Christian König wrote: > Am 03.07.24 um 15:59 schrieb Thomas Hellström: > > On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 15:53 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > > On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 15:40 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > > > Hi, Christian, > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2024-07-03 at 15:25 +0200, Christian König wrote: > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > We recently ran into a problem with deadlocks during eviction > > > > > and > > > > > while back Thomas worked on a patch set which was going into > > > > > the > > > > > direction of solving this. > > > > > > > > > > So I simplified it to just the functionality needed to > > > > > resolve > > > > > this > > > > > issue at. The resulting patch set is just the initial first > > > > > step > > > > > of > > > > > using drm_exec in TTM for locking BOs during eviction. > > > > > > > > > > Should a deadlock happen the drm_exec object is now used to > > > > > resolve > > > > > it and prelock the contended object. This approach solves > > > > > this > > > > > the > > > > > ENOMEM issue on contending evictions quite nicely. > > > > > > > > > > Please review and comment, > > > > > Christian. > > > > Overall it looks sane, but I think it makes sense to review and > > > > land > > > > the part of the shrinker series first that touches this > > > > eviction > > > > path > > > > and gets rid of a lot of code that's hard to understand and > > > > simplifies > > > > the locking a lot. (That part doesn't touch drm_exec), and it > > > > has > > > > been > > > > pending reviews for some time. > > That's actually exactly what I wanted to avoid. > > > > > > > > > I don't think it's correct to bypass that. Then we could work > > > > out > > > > the > > > > drm_exec implications. > > > It's > > > > > > https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/131815/ > > > > > > And in particular patch 7 there brings in the restartable LRU > > > functionality and sipmlifies eviction immensely and would make > > > the > > > usage of this patchset's rudimentary drm_exec support easier to > > > understand and review. > > Yeah, seen Mathews comments on that stuff. > > Looked like 99% sane to me the last time I checked, the only thing > I'm > still not very keen at is still the bulk and cursor interaction. > > > > > > > /Thomas > > Hm. I actually think all review comments have been sorted out up to > > that patch, so what's missing is a resend of the new version, RB > > from > > Matt and Review / Ack from you, then that part could be partially > > merged. > > Going to take another look at that. I'll resend latest version. /Thomas > > Regards, > Christian. > > > > > /Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > /Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
