On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:28:42AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 3c22d49005fe..271e63c8f037 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -2175,8 +2175,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops {
> * being released or under memory pressure (where we attempt to
> * reap pages for the shrinker).
> */
> - int (*get_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *);
> - void (*put_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *);
> + struct sg_table *(*get_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *);
> + void (*put_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *, struct sg_table *);
>
> Idea is that put_pages vfunc does not need struct mutex? Or it acquires
> it on demand inside it, which means struct mutex will nest inside the
> mm.lock?
Right, it loses the mutex within get/put pages and I am no longer
concerned about the number of workers. Though that is mainly because of
another patch to improve execbuf + userptr workloads.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
