On 11/20/2012 12:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Op 20-11-12 08:48, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >> On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >>> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef: >>>> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs >>>>> becomes overly complicated: >>>>> Could this do, or am I missing something? >>>>> >>>> Actually, my version is bad, because ttm_bo_wait() is called with the lru >>>> lock held. >>>> >>>> /Thomas >>> Oh digging through it made me remember why I had to release the reservation >>> early and >>> had to allow move_notify to be called without reservation. >>> >>> Fortunately move_notify has a NULL parameter, which is the only time that >>> happens, >>> so you can still check do BUG_ON(mem != NULL && !ttm_bo_reserved(bo)); in >>> your >>> move_notify handler. >>> >>> 05/10 removed the loop and assumed no new fence could be attached after the >>> driver has >>> declared the bo dead. >>> >>> However, at that point it may no longer hold a reservation to confirm this, >>> that's why >>> I moved the cleanup to be done in the release_list handler. It could still >>> be done in >>> ttm_bo_release, but we no longer have a reservation after we waited. Getting >>> a reservation can fail if the bo is imported for example. >>> >>> While it would be true that in that case a new fence may be attached as >>> well, that >>> would be less harmful since that operation wouldn't involve this device, so >>> the >>> ttm bo can still be removed in that case. When that time comes I should >>> probably >>> fix up that WARN_ON(ret) in ttm_bo_cleanup_refs. :-) >>> >>> I did add a WARN_ON(!atomic_read(&bo->kref.refcount)); to >>> ttm_bo_reserve and ttm_eu_reserve_buffers to be sure nothing is done on the >>> device >>> itself. If that is too paranoid, those WARN_ON's could be dropped. I prefer >>> to leave them >>> in for a kernel release or 2. But according to the rules that would be the >>> only time you >>> could attach a new fence and trigger the WARN_ON for now.. >> Hmm, I'd appreciate if you could group patches with functional changes that >> depend on eachother togeteher, >> and "this is done because ...", which makes it much easier to review, (and >> to follow the commit history in case >> something goes terribly wrong and we need to revert). >> >> Meanwhile I'll take a look at the final ttm_bo.c and see if I can spot any >> culprits. >> >> In general, as long as a bo is on a LRU list, we must be able to attach >> fences because of accelerated eviction. > I thought it was deliberately designed in such a way that it was kept on the > lru list, > but since it's also on the ddestroy list it won't start accelerated eviction, > since it branches into cleanup_refs early, and lru_lock still protects all > the list entries. I used bad wording. I meant that unbinding might be accelerated, but currently (quite inefficiently) do synchronized unbinding, assuming that only the CPU can do that. When we start to support unsynchronized moves, we need to be able to attach fences at least at the last move_notify(bo, NULL);
/Thomas
