On 09/01/2019 16:42, Chris Wilson wrote:
If the current process is being killed (it was interrupted with SIGKILL or equivalent), it will not make any progress in page allocation and we can abort performing the shrinking on its behalf. So we can use mutex_lock_killable() instead (although this path should only be reachable from kswapd currently).
kswapd is hopefully not killable so it is not reachable via that route. But should be via other i915_gem_shrink_all callers. Is it starting to look like we need to pass some flags to say normal/interruptible/killable (kswapd/debugfs/?)?
Regards, Tvrtko
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c index 34b108f73f1d..8ad9519779cc 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c @@ -39,18 +39,18 @@ static bool shrinker_lock(struct drm_i915_private *i915, unsigned int flags, bool *unlock) { - switch (mutex_trylock_recursive(&i915->drm.struct_mutex)) { + struct mutex *m = &i915->drm.struct_mutex; + + switch (mutex_trylock_recursive(m)) { case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_RECURSIVE: *unlock = false; return true;case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_FAILED:*unlock = false; - if (flags & I915_SHRINK_ACTIVE) { - mutex_lock_nested(&i915->drm.struct_mutex, - I915_MM_SHRINKER); + if (flags & I915_SHRINK_ACTIVE && + mutex_lock_killable_nested(m, I915_MM_SHRINKER) == 0) *unlock = true; - } return *unlock;case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_SUCCESS:
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
