On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 8:27 AM Dmitry Osipenko
<dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/26/22 20:50, Rob Clark wrote:
> > +/**
> > + * drm_gem_lru_move_tail_locked - move the object to the tail of the LRU
> > + *
> > + * If the object is already in this LRU it will be moved to the
> > + * tail. Otherwise it will be removed from whichever other LRU
> > + * it is in (if any) and moved into this LRU.
> > + *
> > + * Call with LRU lock held.
> > + *
> > + * @lru: The LRU to move the object into.
> > + * @obj: The GEM object to move into this LRU
> > + */
> > +void
> > +drm_gem_lru_move_tail_locked(struct drm_gem_lru *lru, struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> > +{
> > + lockdep_assert_held_once(lru->lock);
> > +
> > + if (obj->lru)
> > + lru_remove(obj);
>
> The obj->lru also needs to be locked if lru != obj->lru, isn't it? And
> then we should add lockdep_assert_held_once(obj->lru->lock).
>
It is expected (mentioned in comment on drm_gem_lru::lock) that all
lru's are sharing the same lock. Possibly that could be made more
obvious? Having per-lru locks wouldn't really work for accessing the
single drm_gem_object::lru_node.
BR,
-R
