On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:53:03PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > >No we can't do this, as it makes close sync and so can have disasterous > >effects on performance (though mitigated chiefly by userspace > >agressively caching bo) and also the unbind is very likely to fail, > >though admittedly the fbcon copy should be before X starts (ab)using > >signals - hence nasty WARN_ON. > > > >Plus also walking this linear list is quite painful in certain abusive > >tests. My preference for fixing this bug would be via vma active > >references and auto-unbinding on retirement after a close. > > Why this is any different today with GEM_CLOSE having pretty similar > VMA unbind loop? Is the typical (and interesting) case not that > GEM_CLOSE will trigger gem_object_close and gem_object_free at the > same invocation? We have such a cleanup loop in free_object, but we have an active reference to ensure that we only do so once the object is idle (and unbinding won't cause to wait). -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
