Hi, Christian On 3/12/21 10:38 AM, Christian König wrote:
We seem to have some more driver bugs than thought.Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com> --- include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h | 6 ++++-- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h index 4fb523dfab32..df9fe596e7c5 100644 --- a/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h +++ b/include/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_api.h @@ -603,9 +603,11 @@ static inline void ttm_bo_pin(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo) static inline void ttm_bo_unpin(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo) { dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv); - WARN_ON_ONCE(!bo->pin_count); WARN_ON_ONCE(!kref_read(&bo->kref)); - --bo->pin_count; + if (bo->pin_count) + --bo->pin_count; + else + WARN_ON_ONCE(true); }int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_device *bdev,
Since I now have been staring for half a year at the code of the driver that made pinning an art, I have a couple of suggestions here, Could we use an atomic for pin_count, allowing unlocked unpinning but require the lock only for pin_count transition 0->1, (but unlocked for pin_if_already_pinned). In particular I think vmwgfx would benefit from unlocked unpins. Also if the atomic were a refcount_t, that would probably give you the above behaviour?
/Thomas _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
