On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:45:38AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:02:38AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 10:21:31PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > The DRM node allocation code was already a bit of an ugly bit of code > > > within a complex function. Removing it serves the purpose of cleaning > > > the function up. More importantly, it provides a way to have a > > > preallocated (address space) VMA to easily skip this code. Something > > > we're very likely to need. > > > > > > This is essentially a wrapper for DRM node allocation with an eviction + > > > retry. It is something which could be moved to core DRM eventually, if > > > other drivers had similar eviction semantics. > > > > > > This removes a goto used for something other than error unwinding, a > > > generally reviled (I am neutral) practice, and replaces it with a > > > function call to itself that should have the same effect. Note that it's > > > not a recursive function as all the problem set reduction is done in the > > > eviction code. > > > > > > Some might say this change is worse than before because we are using > > > stack for each subsequent call. Frankly, I'd rather overflow the stack > > > and blow it up than loop forever. In either case, this is addressed in > > > the next patch. > > > > > > I believe, and intend, that other than the stack usage, there is no > > > functional change here. > > > > Nope, but decoupling evict_something() further does introduce lots more > > implied magic. > > -Chris > > > > Hmm. I really don't see what's actually upsetting. Can you be a bit more > explicit about what's so bothersome to you for my edification? evict_something() make assumptions about the ranges of the vm which it searches. At the moment, they mirror its parent's function. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
