On ma, 2016-08-01 at 20:28 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 07:22:27PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > The principal motivation for this was to try and eliminate the > > struct_mutex from i915_gem_suspend - but we still need to hold the mutex > > current for the i915_gem_context_lost(). (The issue there is that there > > may be an indirect lockdep cycle between cpu_hotplug (i.e. suspend) and > > struct_mutex via the stop_machine().) For the moment, enabling last > > request tracking for the engine, allows us to do busyness checking and > > waiting without requiring the struct_mutex - which is useful in its own > > right. > Couple of mistakes here: stop-engines tweaking still from when this was > only aiming at making i915_gem_suspend() lockless (now broken out to a > separate patc) and more importantly, accessing > dev_priv->mm.interruptible not under any controlling lock. That takes > passing around bool interruptible and suddenly we have a bigger patch. > :| Not sure what to do with this information, will you send a new revision? Regards, Joonas > -Chris > -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
