Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-01-10 13:16:30) > > On 10/01/2019 10:39, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-01-10 10:28:14) > >> > >> On 09/01/2019 16:42, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>> The wait-for-idle used from within the shrinker_lock_uninterruptible > >>> depends on the struct_mutex locking state being known and declared to > >>> i915_request_wait(). As it is conceivable that we reach the vmap > >>> notifier from underneath struct_mutex (and so keep on relying on the > >>> mutex_trylock_recursive), we should not blindly call i915_request_wait. > >>> > >>> In the process we can remove the dubious polling to acquire > >>> struct_mutex, and simply act, or not, on a successful trylock. > >> > >> Makes sense and removes the special casing. I only miss the historical > >> reference as to why did vmap notifier need this special handling? > > > > Cargo culting. I copied the code I had for oom-notifier, thinking the > > heavier the hammer the better. > > Go for it. > > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> Definitely a long way from perfection! Hopefully not one filled with later regret. Ta, -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
