On 1/29/24 12:01, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 21:46:16 +0300
> Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +/**
>> + * drm_gem_shmem_swapin_locked() - Moves shmem GEM back to memory and enables
>> + * hardware access to the memory.
>> + * @shmem: shmem GEM object
>> + *
>> + * This function moves shmem GEM back to memory if it was previously evicted
>> + * by the memory shrinker. The GEM is ready to use on success.
>> + *
>> + * Returns:
>> + * 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
>> + */
>> +int drm_gem_shmem_swapin_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
>> +{
>> + int err;
>> +
>> + dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);
>> +
>> + if (!shmem->evicted)
>> + return 0;
>
> Shouldn't we have a drm_gem_shmem_shrinker_update_lru_locked() even if
> the object wasn't evicted, such that idle->busy transition moves the BO
> to the list tail?
Seems so, good catch. I'll double-check and remove it in the next version.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
