On 26/11/2019 17:25, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-11-26 17:22:23)
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-26 17:04:43)
On 26/11/2019 15:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c
index e5512f26e20a..f6e661428b02 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.c
@@ -905,6 +905,12 @@ int i915_vma_pin(struct i915_vma *vma, u64 size, u64 alignment, u64 flags)
__i915_vma_set_map_and_fenceable(vma);
}
+ /* Somebody else managed to gazump our placement? */
+ if (i915_vma_misplaced(vma, size, alignment, flags)) {
+ err = -EAGAIN;
+ goto err_active;
+ }
+
What about other callers? They will not be expecting this.
The other paths should be quite happy with -EAGAIN from vma_pin, it's
already part of their retry procedure. If not, there's always more duct
tape. Hopefully the replacement is much simpler (stop laughing back
there).
The alternative here is to pull in __i915_vma_unbind(), which might be
plausible.
To make unbind and pin atomic? You'd need unlocked vma_pin as well. Or
some different idea?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
