Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Do not build debugfs related code when !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
Hi Tvrtko, On 4/1/24 10:21, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: On 01/04/2024 13:45, Christian König wrote: Am 01.04.24 um 14:39 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin: On 29/03/2024 00:00, T.J. Mercier wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 7:53 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin There is no point in compiling in the list and mutex operations which are only used from the dma-buf debugfs code, if debugfs is not compiled in. Put the code in questions behind some kconfig guards and so save some text and maybe even a pointer per object at runtime when not enabled. Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin Reviewed-by: T.J. Mercier Thanks! How would patches to dma-buf be typically landed? Via what tree I mean? drm-misc-next? That should go through drm-misc-next. And feel free to add Reviewed-by: Christian König as well. Thanks! Maarten if I got it right you are handling the next drm-misc-next pull - could you merge this one please? Applied to drm-misc/drm-misc-next! Best Regards, - Maíra Regards, Tvrtko
Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Do not build debugfs related code when !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
On 01/04/2024 13:45, Christian König wrote: Am 01.04.24 um 14:39 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin: On 29/03/2024 00:00, T.J. Mercier wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 7:53 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin There is no point in compiling in the list and mutex operations which are only used from the dma-buf debugfs code, if debugfs is not compiled in. Put the code in questions behind some kconfig guards and so save some text and maybe even a pointer per object at runtime when not enabled. Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin Reviewed-by: T.J. Mercier Thanks! How would patches to dma-buf be typically landed? Via what tree I mean? drm-misc-next? That should go through drm-misc-next. And feel free to add Reviewed-by: Christian König as well. Thanks! Maarten if I got it right you are handling the next drm-misc-next pull - could you merge this one please? Regards, Tvrtko
Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Do not build debugfs related code when !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
Am 01.04.24 um 14:39 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin: On 29/03/2024 00:00, T.J. Mercier wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 7:53 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin There is no point in compiling in the list and mutex operations which are only used from the dma-buf debugfs code, if debugfs is not compiled in. Put the code in questions behind some kconfig guards and so save some text and maybe even a pointer per object at runtime when not enabled. Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin Reviewed-by: T.J. Mercier Thanks! How would patches to dma-buf be typically landed? Via what tree I mean? drm-misc-next? That should go through drm-misc-next. And feel free to add Reviewed-by: Christian König as well. Regards, Christian. Regards, Tvrtko
Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Do not build debugfs related code when !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
On 29/03/2024 00:00, T.J. Mercier wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 7:53 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: From: Tvrtko Ursulin There is no point in compiling in the list and mutex operations which are only used from the dma-buf debugfs code, if debugfs is not compiled in. Put the code in questions behind some kconfig guards and so save some text and maybe even a pointer per object at runtime when not enabled. Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin Reviewed-by: T.J. Mercier Thanks! How would patches to dma-buf be typically landed? Via what tree I mean? drm-misc-next? Regards, Tvrtko
Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Do not build debugfs related code when !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 7:53 AM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > There is no point in compiling in the list and mutex operations which are > only used from the dma-buf debugfs code, if debugfs is not compiled in. > > Put the code in questions behind some kconfig guards and so save some text > and maybe even a pointer per object at runtime when not enabled. > > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin Reviewed-by: T.J. Mercier
[PATCH] dma-buf: Do not build debugfs related code when !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
From: Tvrtko Ursulin
There is no point in compiling in the list and mutex operations which are
only used from the dma-buf debugfs code, if debugfs is not compiled in.
Put the code in questions behind some kconfig guards and so save some text
and maybe even a pointer per object at runtime when not enabled.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin
Cc: Sumit Semwal
Cc: "Christian König"
Cc: linux-me...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: linaro-mm-...@lists.linaro.org
Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Cc: kernel-...@igalia.com
---
drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c | 56 ---
include/linux/dma-buf.h | 2 ++
2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
index 8fe5aa67b167..8892bc701a66 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c
@@ -35,12 +35,35 @@
static inline int is_dma_buf_file(struct file *);
-struct dma_buf_list {
- struct list_head head;
- struct mutex lock;
-};
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(debugfs_list_mutex);
+static LIST_HEAD(debugfs_list);
-static struct dma_buf_list db_list;
+static void __dma_buf_debugfs_list_add(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
+{
+ mutex_lock(_list_mutex);
+ list_add(>list_node, _list);
+ mutex_unlock(_list_mutex);
+}
+
+static void __dma_buf_debugfs_list_del(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
+{
+ if (!dmabuf)
+ return;
+
+ mutex_lock(_list_mutex);
+ list_del(>list_node);
+ mutex_unlock(_list_mutex);
+}
+#else
+static void __dma_buf_debugfs_list_add(struct dma_buf *dmabuf)
+{
+}
+
+static void __dma_buf_debugfs_list_del(struct file *file)
+{
+}
+#endif
static char *dmabuffs_dname(struct dentry *dentry, char *buffer, int buflen)
{
@@ -89,17 +112,10 @@ static void dma_buf_release(struct dentry *dentry)
static int dma_buf_file_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
- struct dma_buf *dmabuf;
-
if (!is_dma_buf_file(file))
return -EINVAL;
- dmabuf = file->private_data;
- if (dmabuf) {
- mutex_lock(_list.lock);
- list_del(>list_node);
- mutex_unlock(_list.lock);
- }
+ __dma_buf_debugfs_list_del(file->private_data);
return 0;
}
@@ -672,9 +688,7 @@ struct dma_buf *dma_buf_export(const struct
dma_buf_export_info *exp_info)
file->f_path.dentry->d_fsdata = dmabuf;
dmabuf->file = file;
- mutex_lock(_list.lock);
- list_add(>list_node, _list.head);
- mutex_unlock(_list.lock);
+ __dma_buf_debugfs_list_add(dmabuf);
return dmabuf;
@@ -1611,7 +1625,7 @@ static int dma_buf_debug_show(struct seq_file *s, void
*unused)
size_t size = 0;
int ret;
- ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(_list.lock);
+ ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(_list_mutex);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -1620,7 +1634,7 @@ static int dma_buf_debug_show(struct seq_file *s, void
*unused)
seq_printf(s, "%-8s\t%-8s\t%-8s\t%-8s\texp_name\t%-8s\tname\n",
"size", "flags", "mode", "count", "ino");
- list_for_each_entry(buf_obj, _list.head, list_node) {
+ list_for_each_entry(buf_obj, _list, list_node) {
ret = dma_resv_lock_interruptible(buf_obj->resv, NULL);
if (ret)
@@ -1657,11 +1671,11 @@ static int dma_buf_debug_show(struct seq_file *s, void
*unused)
seq_printf(s, "\nTotal %d objects, %zu bytes\n", count, size);
- mutex_unlock(_list.lock);
+ mutex_unlock(_list_mutex);
return 0;
error_unlock:
- mutex_unlock(_list.lock);
+ mutex_unlock(_list_mutex);
return ret;
}
@@ -1718,8 +1732,6 @@ static int __init dma_buf_init(void)
if (IS_ERR(dma_buf_mnt))
return PTR_ERR(dma_buf_mnt);
- mutex_init(_list.lock);
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(_list.head);
dma_buf_init_debugfs();
return 0;
}
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-buf.h b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
index 8ff4add71f88..36216d28d8bd 100644
--- a/include/linux/dma-buf.h
+++ b/include/linux/dma-buf.h
@@ -370,8 +370,10 @@ struct dma_buf {
*/
struct module *owner;
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
/** @list_node: node for dma_buf accounting and debugging. */
struct list_head list_node;
+#endif
/** @priv: exporter specific private data for this buffer object. */
void *priv;
--
2.44.0
