On 02/09/2016 12:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:59:12AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 11:30:18AM +0100, John Harrison wrote:
+ if (request->file_priv) {
Why check for request->file_priv again? The block above will exit if
it is null. There surely can't be a race with remove_from_client
being called concurrently with add_to_client? Especially as
add_to_client no longer takes the spin_lock anyway.
We can however allow i915_gem_release() to be called concurrently. It
doesn't require struct_mutex.
That's not correct. setting file_priv = NULL is serialised by the
struct_mutex, not the file_priv->mm.lock. That spin_lock there is
misleading.
-Chris
The spinlock is to protect the list rather than the request, I thought.
AFAICS, i915_gem_release() is only called from i915_driver_preclose()
and that holds the mutex lock. So you are safe?
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
