op 21-10-13 10:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: > Hi! > > As discussed previously the current locking order in TTM of these locks is bo::reserve -> vm::mmap_sem. This leads to a hack in > the TTM fault() handle to try and revert the locking order. If a tryreserve failed, we tried to have the vm code release the mmap_sem() and then schedule, to give the holder of bo::reserve a chance to release the lock. This solution is no longer legal, since we've been more or less kindly asked to remove the set_need_resched() call. > > Maarten has proposed to invert the locking order. I've previously said I had no strong preference. The current locking order dates back from the time when TTM wasn't using unmap_mapping_range() but walked the page tables itself, updating PTEs as needed. Furthermore it was needed for user bos that used get_user_pages() in the TTM populate and swap-in methods. User-bos were removed some time ago but I'm looking at re-adding them. They would suite the VMware model of cached-only pages very well. I see uses both in the gallium API, XA's DMA functionality and openCL. > > We would then need a somewhat nicer way to invert the locking order. I've attached a solution that ups the mmap_sem and then reserves, but due to how the fault API is done, we then need to release the reserve and retry the fault. This of course opens up for starvation, but I don't think starvation at this point is very likely: One thread being refused to write or read from a buffer object because the GPU is continously busy with it. If this *would* become a problem, it's probably possible to modify the fault code to allow us to hold locks until the retried fault, but that would be a bit invasive, since it touches the arch code.... > > Basically I'm proposing to keep the current locking order. I'm not sure why we have to worry about mmap_sem lock being taken before bo::reserve. If we already hold mmap_sem, no extra locking is needed for get_user_pages. Releasing it is a bit silly. I think we should keep mmap_sem as outer lock, and have bo::reserve as inner, even if it might complicate support for user-bo's. I'm not sure what you can do with user-bo's that can't be done by allocating the same bo from kernel first and map + populate it. ~Maarten _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
