On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 06:36:04PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Volkin, Bradley D wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 03:13:14PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > + /* Check if a second thread completed the prefaulting for us */ > > > + if (obj->fault_mappable && pte_exists(vma, vma->vm_start)) > > > + goto unlock; > > > + > > > > We only set fault_mappable if we successfully remapped the whole range and clear > > it on unmapping the whole range, so do we need the additional pte_exists() check? > > Yes. You have you have to consider that we can have multiple vma > pointing to the same object. See i-g-t/gem_mmap_gtt/read-write-distinct. > -Chris Ah, I missed the protection bits as a reason for a second mapping. Makes sense though. Reviewed-by: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@xxxxxxxxx> > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
