On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 09:25:45AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 22/05/2024 16:29, Vidya Srinivas wrote:
> > In some scenarios, the DPT object gets shrunk but
> > the actual framebuffer did not and thus its still
> > there on the DPT's vm->bound_list. Then it tries to
> > rewrite the PTEs via a stale CPU mapping. This causes panic.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Fixes: 0dc987b699ce ("drm/i915/display: Add smem fallback allocation for dpt")
> > Signed-off-by: Vidya Srinivas <vidya.srinivas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> > index 3560a062d287..e6b485fc54d4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> > @@ -284,7 +284,8 @@ bool i915_gem_object_has_iomem(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj);
> > static inline bool
> > i915_gem_object_is_shrinkable(const struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > {
> > - return i915_gem_object_type_has(obj, I915_GEM_OBJECT_IS_SHRINKABLE);
> > + return i915_gem_object_type_has(obj, I915_GEM_OBJECT_IS_SHRINKABLE) &&
> > + !obj->is_dpt;
>
> Is there a reason i915_gem_object_make_unshrinkable() cannot be used to
> mark the object at a suitable place?
Do you have a suitable place in mind?
i915_gem_object_make_unshrinkable() contains some magic
ingredients so doesn't look like it can be called willy
nilly.
Anyways, looks like I forgot to reply that I already pushed this
with this extra comment added:
/* TODO: make DPT shrinkable when it has no bound vmas */
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
