On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:52:27AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 14/10/2016 10:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >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.
>
> Is that other patch before or after this one? Or in a different
> series altogether? In any case, why should this change be in this
> patch, especially when it is not commented anywhere?
Actually, it follows from
commit 364c8172edb5ff0b4650bbd4c45eaab46b84b008
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Aug 18 17:16:58 2016 +0100
drm/i915/userptr: Make gup errors stickier
which was the prelude to the patch I was thinking of. The current code
already doesn't use more than one worker simultaneously.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
