On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 03:58:25PM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 05:21:55AM -0700, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > @@ -1949,58 +1956,58 @@ static unsigned long
> > __i915_gem_shrink(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, long target,
> > bool purgeable_only)
> > {
> > - struct list_head still_bound_list;
> > - struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, *next;
> > + struct list_head still_in_list;
> > + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> > unsigned long count = 0;
> >
> > - list_for_each_entry_safe(obj, next,
> > - &dev_priv->mm.unbound_list,
> > - global_list) {
> > - if ((i915_gem_object_is_purgeable(obj) || !purgeable_only) &&
> > - i915_gem_object_put_pages(obj) == 0) {
> > - count += obj->base.size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > - if (count >= target)
> > - return count;
> > - }
> > - }
> > -
> > /*
> > - * As we may completely rewrite the bound list whilst unbinding
> > + * As we may completely rewrite the (un)bound list whilst unbinding
> > * (due to retiring requests) we have to strictly process only
> > * one element of the list at the time, and recheck the list
> > * on every iteration.
>
> Is it still true that we could retire requests on this path? I see that
> currently we will retire requests via:
> i915_vma_unbind -> i915_gem_object_finish_gpu -> i915_gem_object_wait_rendering.
>
> But we've taken the explicit request retirement out of the wait_rendering path.
> Have I missed somewhere that it could still happen?
Yes, as wait_rendering doesn't retire all the requests, we may still have
a request associated with the bo. This will then cause us to call
i915_gem_object_retire() during i915_gem_object_put_pages() (through
i915_gem_object_set_to_cpu_domain) thereby discard the last active
reference and destroying the object unless we take care.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
