Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> While our little rcu worker might be able to be replaced now by the
> dedicated rcu_work, in the meantime we should mark up the rcu_head for
> correct debugobjects tracking.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I got distracted on looking how the epoch works.
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 24f126ccf21e..5537f4030717 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -3557,6 +3557,8 @@ static void __sleep_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> struct sleep_rcu_work *s = container_of(rcu, typeof(*s), rcu);
> struct drm_i915_private *i915 = s->i915;
>
> + destroy_rcu_head(&s->rcu);
> +
> if (same_epoch(i915, s->epoch)) {
> INIT_WORK(&s->work, __sleep_work);
> queue_work(i915->wq, &s->work);
> @@ -3673,6 +3675,7 @@ i915_gem_idle_work_handler(struct work_struct *work)
> if (same_epoch(dev_priv, epoch)) {
> struct sleep_rcu_work *s = kmalloc(sizeof(*s), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (s) {
> + init_rcu_head(&s->rcu);
> s->i915 = dev_priv;
> s->epoch = epoch;
> call_rcu(&s->rcu, __sleep_rcu);
> --
> 2.19.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
