On 10/04/2019 14:04, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-04-10 13:49:32)
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-04-10 13:45:05)
On 08/04/2019 10:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
index da342e9a8c2e..4f8ef45e6344 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
@@ -39,9 +39,17 @@ intel_context_lookup(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
* can neither be bound to the GPU or unbound whilst the lock is held, i.e.
* intel_context_is_pinned() remains stable.
*/
-struct intel_context *
-intel_context_pin_lock(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
- struct intel_engine_cs *engine);
+static inline int intel_context_pin_lock(struct intel_context *ce)
+ __acquires(ce->pin_mutex)
+{
+ return mutex_lock_interruptible(&ce->pin_mutex);
+}
So if this is not getting the kref any more why are the other callers
okay? In previous patch(es) some certainly looked like they assume pin
implies a reference.
This is not 'pin' but locking the pinned state.
Maybe lock_pin and unlock_pin? (I was going to say lock_pin_count, but
it strictly does not prevent updates to pin_count, merely the transition
to/from .pin_count == 0.)
I honestly cannot figure out now what I thought the problem is. Perhaps
I confused it with intel_context_pin.
There is so much churn in intel_context.c, both recent and in this
series, that I struggle to keep with it...
Went with intel_context_lock_pinned() and intel_context_unlock_pinned().
...so this is also okay. Perhaps add an assert that pin count is above
zero as well.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
