On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 08:17:08AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 09:06:09AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 05:45:44PM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:29:41PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > >> amdgpu gained dev->struct_mutex usage, and that's because it's walking > > > >> the dev->filelist list. Protect that list with it's own lock to take > > > >> one more step towards getting rid of struct_mutex usage in drivers > > > >> once and for all. > > > >> > > > >> While doing the conversion I noticed that 2 debugfs files in i915 > > > >> completely lacked appropriate locking. Fix that up too. > > > >> > > > >> v2: don't forget to switch to drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked. > > > >> > > > >> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Just wondering if this worth converting over. Opening/closing isn't > > > > going to be high contention, I hope, though we can certainly write > > > > stress cases for it! The goal for drivers to stop using the struct_mutex > > > > as their BKL, which doesn't preclude keeping the struct_mutex around for > > > > where it makes sense to have a single mutex rather than a multitude. > > > > > > > > I have some misgivings over this, but only because I think its overkill. > > > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > I agree with Chris' sentiments. > > > > It's not to have more speed or less contention, but just to have fewer > > things to worry about when reviewing locking. Hence orthogonal locks for > > independent parts. > > > > My goal is that in the end dev->struct_mutex is only used by some existing > > drivers for their internals, plus all the legacy core stuff. And never > > even used by modern drivers. New locks are pretty cheap, and not dragging > > in the entire legacy horror show has benefits. > > > > When/once I tackle the one thing left (master locking) I might move the > > master handling under this lock too (since it's closely related to open > > files). Not sure yet. > > drm: s/struct_mutex/legacy_mutex/ Yeah that's the eventual plan. Probably need to convert over some of the current gem drivers first to make it less of a flag day. > drm/i915: s/struct_mutex/bfg9000/ Can't do that yet because holding struct_mutex prevents objects from disappearing, speficially all our mm and lru lists only hold a weak reference. We need to rework our shrinkers first and switch over to gem_object_free_unlocked before we can disengage from struct_mutex in i915. But yeah, again that's the plan. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
