Buffer object initialization may be part of a drm_exec transaction. Rather than using dma_resv_trylock, use drm_exec_trylock_obj().
RFC: This patch indicates to me that we should avoid the -ENOMEM failure for drm_exec_trylock, Could probably use a sleeping lock here without problems. Cc: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com> Cc: Somalapuram Amaranath <amaranath.somalapu...@amd.com> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com> Cc: <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org> Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellst...@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c index 8706502edcb1..70af66b5b86e 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c @@ -942,10 +942,17 @@ int ttm_bo_init_reserved(struct ttm_device *bdev, struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, /* passed reservation objects should already be locked, * since otherwise lockdep will be angered in radeon. */ - if (!resv) - WARN_ON(!dma_resv_trylock(bo->base.resv)); - else + if (!resv) { + if (ctx->exec) { + ret = drm_exec_trylock_obj(ctx->exec, &bo->base); + if (ret) + goto err_put; + } else { + WARN_ON(!dma_resv_trylock(bo->base.resv)); + } + } else { dma_resv_assert_held(resv); + } ret = ttm_bo_validate(bo, placement, ctx); if (unlikely(ret)) @@ -954,8 +961,12 @@ int ttm_bo_init_reserved(struct ttm_device *bdev, struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, return 0; err_unlock: - if (!resv) - dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv); + if (!resv) { + if (ctx->exec) + drm_exec_unlock_obj(ctx->exec, &bo->base); + else + dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv); + } err_put: ttm_bo_put(bo); -- 2.44.0