On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:14:35PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 09:28:10AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > During cleanup we have to synchronise with the async task we are using > > to initialise and register our fbdev. Currently, we are using a full > > synchronisation on the global domain, but we can restrict this to just > > synchronising up to our task if we remember our cookie. > > > > v2: async_synchronize_cookie() takes an exclusive upper bound, to > > synchronize with our task we have to pass in the next cookie. > > Oops, good catch, missed that in my own version of this patch: > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/2016-March/091257.html > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 1 + > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++------------- > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > > index 3536292babe0..5bb045ba608e 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > > @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ struct intel_framebuffer { > > struct intel_fbdev { > > struct drm_fb_helper helper; > > struct intel_framebuffer *fb; > > + async_cookie_t cookie; > > int preferred_bpp; > > }; > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c > > index 99e27530e264..2e9c3f38c023 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c > > @@ -538,8 +538,7 @@ static const struct drm_fb_helper_funcs intel_fb_helper_funcs = { > > .fb_probe = intelfb_create, > > }; > > > > -static void intel_fbdev_destroy(struct drm_device *dev, > > - struct intel_fbdev *ifbdev) > > +static void intel_fbdev_destroy(struct intel_fbdev *ifbdev) > > { > > /* We rely on the object-free to release the VMA pinning for > > * the info->screen_base mmaping. Leaking the VMA is simpler than > > @@ -554,12 +553,14 @@ static void intel_fbdev_destroy(struct drm_device *dev, > > if (ifbdev->fb) { > > drm_framebuffer_unregister_private(&ifbdev->fb->base); > > > > - mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > + mutex_lock(&ifbdev->helper.dev->struct_mutex); > > intel_unpin_fb_obj(&ifbdev->fb->base, BIT(DRM_ROTATE_0)); > > - mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > > + mutex_unlock(&ifbdev->helper.dev->struct_mutex); > > > > drm_framebuffer_remove(&ifbdev->fb->base); > > } > > + > > + kfree(ifbdev); > > } > > > > /* > > @@ -736,32 +737,36 @@ int intel_fbdev_init(struct drm_device *dev) > > > > static void intel_fbdev_initial_config(void *data, async_cookie_t cookie) > > { > > - struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data; > > - struct intel_fbdev *ifbdev = dev_priv->fbdev; > > + struct intel_fbdev *ifbdev = data; > > + > > + ifbdev->cookie = 0; > > Hm, why are you setting this to 0 here? IIUC the effect is that > async_synchronize_cookie() will wait until intel_fbdev_initial_config() > has been *entered*, but isn't the desired effect that it has *finished*? True, it's also an unserialised write. Premature optimisation to not block the teardown waiting for the out-of-order completion of earlier tasks. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
