On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:19:20PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 2014-08-12 16:28 GMT-03:00 Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 04:12:38PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > >>> But we just get/put RPM around this function, not for the whole time > >>> while the object is pinned. > >> > >> Ah misread, saw pin->get, unpin->put and assumed the symmetry. But why > >> unpin then? It doesn't touch any hardware registers. > > > > Only because Daniel asked it on a conversation we had on IRC, and I > > automatically assumed the patch would be rejected if I didn't include > > it :) > > > > Since both you and VIlle pointed that out, I should probably submit > > yet another version, without the unpin part, and let Daniel choose > > which one to merge... > > Hm, I've indeed forgotten about the lazy unbinding. But that poses the > question about the final bo unref. For example: > 1) create bo, gtt mmap it to force it into existence (and into the global gtt) > 2) unmap binding > 3) wait for rpm entry > 4) unref bo ... causing pte writes for the global gtt unbinding while > runtime suspended or not? > > boom or not boom? > > Maybe the bug is simply in a different function ;-) Yes. If you get serious about it, you will want to move the lazy stuff into its own workqueue to be run the next time the device is awake. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
