On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:48:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 09:57:04AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Now that we track objects for their entire lifetime in a list, we can > > > move the cost of the bookkeeping to the infrequent query of > > > i915_gem_objects. This also removes the race where we would increment the > > > global object count and size without holding any locks. > > > > > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67121 > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I love it when I can check off items from my todo list simply by merging a > > patch ;-) Queued for -next, thanks for the patch. > > This now omits allocated objects for which obj->pages is NULL, so we'd > miss some classes of leaks. So I've dropped this patch again, I guess we > should add spinlock or something. Or use and atomic_t and just count > objects. I'd rather have consistent underreporting than garbage though. I think this patch is the lesser of two evils... And you can propose adding a lock/locked operation to open. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
