[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49fe9ecf-b1bd-a21b-8d8c-e4a33e3fa821@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 18:27:19 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@...labora.com>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
Cc: freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/15] drm/gem: Add LRU/shrinker helper
On 7/26/22 20:50, Rob Clark wrote:
> +/**
> + * drm_gem_lru_move_tail_locked - move the object to the tail of the LRU
> + *
> + * If the object is already in this LRU it will be moved to the
> + * tail. Otherwise it will be removed from whichever other LRU
> + * it is in (if any) and moved into this LRU.
> + *
> + * Call with LRU lock held.
> + *
> + * @lru: The LRU to move the object into.
> + * @obj: The GEM object to move into this LRU
> + */
> +void
> +drm_gem_lru_move_tail_locked(struct drm_gem_lru *lru, struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> +{
> + lockdep_assert_held_once(lru->lock);
> +
> + if (obj->lru)
> + lru_remove(obj);
The obj->lru also needs to be locked if lru != obj->lru, isn't it? And
then we should add lockdep_assert_held_once(obj->lru->lock).
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists