On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 05:58:33PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > On ke, 2017-05-24 at 17:26 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > I have a plan to write a quick test to exercise concurrent usage of > > i915_gem_shrink(), the simplest way looks to be to have multiple threads > > using debugfs/i915_drop_caches. However, we currently take one lock over > > the entire function, serialising the calls into i915_gem_shrink() so > > reduce the lock coverage. > > > > Testcase: igt/gem_shrink/reclaim > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > <SNIP> > > > + if (val & DROP_RETIRE) > > + i915_gem_retire_requests(dev_priv); > > + > > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > + } > > > > lockdep_set_current_reclaim_state(GFP_KERNEL); > > Lock used to work as a serializer, isn't this going to get contended > now? lockdep_set_current ? The intention is to allow the contention to reach i915_gem_shrink where we have the more complex locking. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
