On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:11:20AM +0000, John Harrison wrote: > On 12/01/2016 00:20, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:42:31PM +0000, John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>A later patch in this series re-organises the batch buffer submission > >>code. Part of that is to reduce the scope of a pm_get/put pair. > >>Specifically, they previously wrapped the entire submission path from > >>the very start to the very end, now they only wrap the actual hardware > >>submission part in the back half. > >However, as you haven't fixed the ordering issue that requires rpm_get > >before struct_mutex, this is broken. > Why does 'intel_runtime_pm_get' require the struct mutex to be held? > It has certainly not complained at me about trying to do stuff > without it. Because it depends upon the struct_mutex and rpm doesn't have sufficient lockdep integration to be able to warn about using rpm from the incorrect contexts. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
