On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:42:47PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Since a change in cache level is likely to trigger an unbind, avoid
> > waiting under the mutex by preemptively doing an unlocked wait.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > index c1c2765bb8d0..0926c291404c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > @@ -3384,7 +3384,7 @@ int i915_gem_set_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > struct drm_i915_gem_caching *args = data;
> > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> > enum i915_cache_level level;
> > - int ret;
> > + int ret = 0;
> >
> > switch (args->caching) {
> > case I915_CACHING_NONE:
> > @@ -3409,20 +3409,29 @@ int i915_gem_set_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(dev);
> > + obj = i915_gem_object_lookup(file, args->handle);
>
> Does this need to be i915_gem_object_lookup_rcu?
No. That's a special case for when the caller knows it is using RCU for
the entire duration of the access and so doesn't need to acquire a
reference to the object.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
