On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 11:53, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The evict selftests presumed that all objects in use had been allocated
> by itself. This is a dubious claim and so instead of asserting complete
> control over the object lists, take (temporary) ownership of them
> instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c | 64 +++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c
> index 067e5dfa0a24..543d618c152b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_evict.c
> @@ -31,30 +31,63 @@
>
> static int populate_ggtt(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> {
> - struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, *on;
> + unsigned long expected_unbound, expected_bound;
> + unsigned long unbound, bound, count;
> u64 size;
> + int err;
> +
> + expected_unbound = 0;
> + list_for_each_entry(obj, &i915->mm.unbound_list, mm.link) {
> + i915_gem_object_get(obj);
> + expected_unbound++;
> + }
> +
> + expected_bound = 0;
> + list_for_each_entry(obj, &i915->mm.bound_list, mm.link) {
> + i915_gem_object_get(obj);
> + expected_bound++;
> + }
>
> + count = 0;
> for (size = 0;
> size + I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE <= i915->ggtt.vm.total;
> size += I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE) {
> struct i915_vma *vma;
>
> obj = i915_gem_object_create_internal(i915, I915_GTT_PAGE_SIZE);
> - if (IS_ERR(obj))
> - return PTR_ERR(obj);
> + if (IS_ERR(obj)) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(obj);
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
>
> vma = i915_gem_object_ggtt_pin(obj, NULL, 0, 0, 0);
> - if (IS_ERR(vma))
> - return PTR_ERR(vma);
> + if (IS_ERR(vma)) {
> + err = PTR_ERR(vma);
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
> +
> + count++;
> }
>
> - if (!list_empty(&i915->mm.unbound_list)) {
> - size = 0;
> - list_for_each_entry(obj, &i915->mm.unbound_list, mm.link)
> - size++;
> + unbound = 0;
> + list_for_each_entry(obj, &i915->mm.unbound_list, mm.link)
> + unbound++;
> + if (unbound != expected_unbound) {
> + pr_err("%s: Found %lu objects unbound, expected %lu!\n",
> + __func__, unbound, expected_unbound);
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto cleanup;
> + }
>
> - pr_err("Found %lld objects unbound!\n", size);
> - return -EINVAL;
> + bound = 0;
> + list_for_each_entry(obj, &i915->mm.bound_list, mm.link)
> + bound++;
> + if (bound != expected_bound + count) {
> + pr_err("%s: Found %lu objects bound, expected %lu!\n",
> + __func__, bound, expected_bound + count);
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + goto cleanup;
> }
>
> if (list_empty(&i915->ggtt.vm.inactive_list)) {
> @@ -63,6 +96,15 @@ static int populate_ggtt(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> }
>
> return 0;
> +
> +cleanup:
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(obj, on, &i915->mm.unbound_list, mm.link)
> + i915_gem_object_put(obj);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(obj, on, &i915->mm.bound_list, mm.link)
> + i915_gem_object_put(obj);
> +
Drive-by-question: we don't need a drop-lock-drain here to prevent
potential double free for when we land in cleanup_objects ?
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
