On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 03:05:46PM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > From: Alex Dai <[email protected]> > > There is a memory leak warning message from i915_gem_context_clean > when GuC submission is enabled. The reason is that the request (so > the LRC associated with it) is freed early than moving the vma list > to inactive. When retire a gem object, this patch moves its vma > list to inactive first to avoid the false alert of memory leak. > > We are not seeing this in ExecList (non-GuC) mode because the gem > request is moved to execlist_retired_req_list queue. The management > of this queue, therefore free of LRC, happens after retire of vma > list (i915_gem_retire_requests_ring).
Instead of hacking up the core active tracking code can we just fix lrc context object tracking instead? This patch here seems to be supremely fragile, and I really don't want it. -Daniel > > Signed-off-by: Alex Dai <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > index 7d6b0c8..a903d45 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > @@ -2377,28 +2377,31 @@ i915_gem_object_retire__read(struct > drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int ring) > RQ_BUG_ON(obj->last_read_req[ring] == NULL); > RQ_BUG_ON(!(obj->active & (1 << ring))); > > + obj->active &= ~(1 << ring); > + if (!obj->active) { > + /* Bump our place on the bound list to keep it roughly in LRU > + * order so that we don't steal from recently used but inactive > + * objects (unless we are forced to ofc!) > + */ > + list_move_tail(&obj->global_list, > + &to_i915(obj->base.dev)->mm.bound_list); > + > + list_for_each_entry(vma, &obj->vma_list, vma_link) { > + if (!list_empty(&vma->mm_list)) > + list_move_tail(&vma->mm_list, > + &vma->vm->inactive_list); > + } > + } > + > list_del_init(&obj->ring_list[ring]); > i915_gem_request_assign(&obj->last_read_req[ring], NULL); > > if (obj->last_write_req && obj->last_write_req->ring->id == ring) > i915_gem_object_retire__write(obj); > > - obj->active &= ~(1 << ring); > if (obj->active) > return; > > - /* Bump our place on the bound list to keep it roughly in LRU order > - * so that we don't steal from recently used but inactive objects > - * (unless we are forced to ofc!) > - */ > - list_move_tail(&obj->global_list, > - &to_i915(obj->base.dev)->mm.bound_list); > - > - list_for_each_entry(vma, &obj->vma_list, vma_link) { > - if (!list_empty(&vma->mm_list)) > - list_move_tail(&vma->mm_list, &vma->vm->inactive_list); > - } > - > i915_gem_request_assign(&obj->last_fenced_req, NULL); > drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base); > } > -- > 1.9.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
