On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:42:47PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote: > Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes: > > > Since a change in cache level is likely to trigger an unbind, avoid > > waiting under the mutex by preemptively doing an unlocked wait. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > index c1c2765bb8d0..0926c291404c 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > > @@ -3384,7 +3384,7 @@ int i915_gem_set_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device > > *dev, void *data, > > struct drm_i915_gem_caching *args = data; > > struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; > > enum i915_cache_level level; > > - int ret; > > + int ret = 0; > > > > switch (args->caching) { > > case I915_CACHING_NONE: > > @@ -3409,20 +3409,29 @@ int i915_gem_set_caching_ioctl(struct drm_device > > *dev, void *data, > > return -EINVAL; > > } > > > > - ret = i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(dev); > > + obj = i915_gem_object_lookup(file, args->handle); > > Does this need to be i915_gem_object_lookup_rcu?
No. That's a special case for when the caller knows it is using RCU for the entire duration of the access and so doesn't need to acquire a reference to the object. -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
