On 14/10/2016 10:43, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:28:42AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
  diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
  index 3c22d49005fe..271e63c8f037 100644
  --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
  +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
  @@ -2175,8 +2175,8 @@ struct drm_i915_gem_object_ops {
           * being released or under memory pressure (where we attempt to
           * reap pages for the shrinker).
  -       int (*get_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *);
  -       void (*put_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *);
  +       struct sg_table *(*get_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *);
  +       void (*put_pages)(struct drm_i915_gem_object *, struct sg_table *);

    Idea is that put_pages vfunc does not need struct mutex?  Or it acquires
    it on demand inside it, which means struct mutex will nest inside the
Right, it loses the mutex within get/put pages and I am no longer
concerned about the number of workers. Though that is mainly because of
another patch to improve execbuf + userptr workloads.

Is that other patch before or after this one? Or in a different series altogether? In any case, why should this change be in this patch, especially when it is not commented anywhere?



Intel-gfx mailing list

Reply via email to