lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2023 09:41:55 +0100 From: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com> To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com> Cc: intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>, Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Oak Zeng <oak.zeng@...el.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@...el.com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Documentation/gpu: VM_BIND locking document Hi, Boris On 11/16/23 15:47, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:53:50 +0100 > Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2023-11-16 at 14:27 +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 12:48:45 +0100 >>> Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, Boris, >>>> >>>> Thanks for reviewing. Some comments below: >>>> I'm going to send out an updated version today with I think all of Danilo's comments and must of yours addressed. While I added more references to GPUVM, mainly as code examples and explanations, I've intentionally left out the "This is a driver lock and this is a gpvum lock distinction", The reason is twofold. First I think that when we get userptr into gpvum, gpuvm needs to be aware of most if not all locks. Second, since this document is an implementation guideline and gpuvm is an implementation it makes more sense to me to add pointers from the GPUVM documentation to the VM_BIND locking guideline, and that could be a task to be looked at after merging this together with implementing the userptr stuff. The most important thing at this point is that the document doesn't conflict in any way with the gpuvm implementation, and I've fixed those parts where I missed the separate lock protecting the GEM object's vm_bo list that you pointed out. I strongly think this is the right way to go but if you disagree to the point where you're not willing to provide an ack or R-B, let me know and we can look at adding what's missing. Thanks, Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists