[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <498CAD2F.5070806@shipmail.org>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:35:43 +0100
From: Thomas Hellström <thomas@...pmail.org>
To: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
CC: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
DRI <dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Gem GTT mmaps..
Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thursday, February 5, 2009 10:37 am Jesse Barnes wrote:
>
>> So if we leave the lookup reference around from the GTT mapping ioctl, that
>> would take care of new mappings. And if we added/removed references at VM
>> open/close time, we should be covered for fork. But is it ok to add a new
>> unref in the finish ioctl for GTT mapped objects? I don't think so,
>> because we don't know for sure if the caller was the one that created the
>> new fake offset (which would be one way of detecting whether it was GTT
>> mapped). Seems like we need a new unmap ioctl? Or we could put the mapping
>> ref/unref in libdrm, where it would be tracked on a per-process basis...
>>
>
> Ah but maybe we should just tear down the fake offset at unmap time; then we'd
> be able to use it as an existence test for the mapping and get the
> refcounting right. The last thing I thought of was whether we'd be ok in a
> map_gtt -> crash case. I *think* the vm_close code will deal with that, if
> we do a deref there?
>
Yes, an mmap() is always paired with a vm_close(), and the vm_close()
also happens in a crash situation.
/Thomas
> Thanks,
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists