On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 09:29:35AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 11.05.22 um 21:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > [SNIP]
> > > > > It's unclear to me which driver may ever want to do the mapping under
> > > > > the dma_resv_lock. But if we will ever have such a driver that will
> > > > > need
>
Am 11.05.22 um 21:05 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
It's unclear to me which driver may ever want to do the mapping under
the dma_resv_lock. But if we will ever have such a driver that will need
to map imported buffer under dma_resv_lock, then we could always add the
dma_buf_vmap_locked()
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:40:32PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 5/11/22 18:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:14:00PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> On 5/11/22 17:24, Christian König wrote:
> >>> Am 11.05.22 um 15:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022
On 5/11/22 18:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:14:00PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 5/11/22 17:24, Christian König wrote:
>>> Am 11.05.22 um 15:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:39:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> [SNIP]
> Since
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 06:14:00PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 5/11/22 17:24, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 11.05.22 um 15:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:39:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >>> [SNIP]
> >>> Since vmapping implies implicit pinning, we can't use
On 5/11/22 17:24, Christian König wrote:
> Am 11.05.22 um 15:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:39:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> [SNIP]
>>> Since vmapping implies implicit pinning, we can't use a separate lock in
>>> drm_gem_shmem_vmap() because we need to protect the
On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 04:24:28PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 11.05.22 um 15:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:39:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> > > [SNIP]
> > > Since vmapping implies implicit pinning, we can't use a separate lock in
> > > drm_gem_shmem_vmap()
Am 11.05.22 um 15:00 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:39:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
[SNIP]
Since vmapping implies implicit pinning, we can't use a separate lock in
drm_gem_shmem_vmap() because we need to protect the
drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(), which is invoked by
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 04:39:53PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 5/9/22 16:42, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 01:49:12AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> On 5/5/22 11:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 06:56:09PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On
On 5/9/22 16:42, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 01:49:12AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 5/5/22 11:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 06:56:09PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
On 5/4/22 11:21, Daniel Vetter wrote:
...
>>> - Maybe also do what
On Fri, May 06, 2022 at 01:49:12AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 5/5/22 11:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 06:56:09PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> On 5/4/22 11:21, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> ...
> > - Maybe also do what you suggest and keep a separate lock for
On 5/5/22 11:12, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 06:56:09PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 5/4/22 11:21, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> ...
> - Maybe also do what you suggest and keep a separate lock for this, but
> the fundamental issue is that this doesn't really work - if
On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 06:56:09PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On 5/4/22 11:21, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> ...
> >>> - Maybe also do what you suggest and keep a separate lock for this, but
> >>> the fundamental issue is that this doesn't really work - if you share
> >>> buffers both ways with
On 5/4/22 11:21, Daniel Vetter wrote:
...
>>> - Maybe also do what you suggest and keep a separate lock for this, but
>>> the fundamental issue is that this doesn't really work - if you share
>>> buffers both ways with two drivers using shmem helpers, then the
>>> ordering of this
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 09:31:00PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> Hello Daniel,
>
> 27.04.2022 17:50, Daniel Vetter пишет:
> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 10:18:54PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> On 4/18/22 21:38, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> >>> Hi
> >>>
> >>> Am 18.04.22 um
Hello Daniel,
27.04.2022 17:50, Daniel Vetter пишет:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 10:18:54PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 4/18/22 21:38, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Am 18.04.22 um 00:37 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
Replace drm_gem_shmem locks with the reservation
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 10:18:54PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 4/18/22 21:38, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Am 18.04.22 um 00:37 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
> >> Replace drm_gem_shmem locks with the reservation lock to make GEM
> >> lockings more consistent.
> >>
> >>
Hello,
On 4/18/22 21:38, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 18.04.22 um 00:37 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
>> Replace drm_gem_shmem locks with the reservation lock to make GEM
>> lockings more consistent.
>>
>> Previously drm_gem_shmem_vmap() and drm_gem_shmem_get_pages() were
>> protected by
Hi
Am 18.04.22 um 00:37 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
Replace drm_gem_shmem locks with the reservation lock to make GEM
lockings more consistent.
Previously drm_gem_shmem_vmap() and drm_gem_shmem_get_pages() were
protected by separate locks, now it's the same lock, but it doesn't
make any
Replace drm_gem_shmem locks with the reservation lock to make GEM
lockings more consistent.
Previously drm_gem_shmem_vmap() and drm_gem_shmem_get_pages() were
protected by separate locks, now it's the same lock, but it doesn't
make any difference for the current GEM SHMEM users. Only Panfrost
and
20 matches
Mail list logo
