Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-07-08 13:22:01)
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-07-08 13:18:02)
> >
> > On 08/07/2019 12:39, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > v2: Though it doesn't affect the current users, contexts may share
> > > timelines so check if we already hold the right mutex.
>
> > > +int intel_context_prepare_remote_request(struct intel_context *ce,
> > > + struct i915_request *rq)
> > > +{
> > > + struct intel_timeline *tl = ce->ring->timeline;
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + /* Only suitable for use in remotely modifying this context */
> > > + GEM_BUG_ON(rq->hw_context == ce);
> > > +
> > > + if (rq->timeline != tl) { /* beware timeline sharing */
> > > + err = mutex_lock_interruptible_nested(&tl->mutex,
> > > + SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> >
> > Which caller is holding tl->mutex?
>
> None today, but it is conceivable. So rather than have a mysterious
> deadlock not reported by lockdep in the future, nip the problem in the
> bud.
Just in case, creating a request takes the timeline->mutex and holds it
until submitted. So the scenario I considered was if one user context
wanted to modify another one (which could work), but they happen to be
on a common timeline.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
