[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aCWtINcOUWciwx8L@pollux>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 11:00:16 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Connor Abbott <cwabbott0@...il.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/40] drm/gpuvm: Allow VAs to hold soft reference to
BOs
On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 10:53:16AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
>
> Eases migration for drivers where VAs don't hold hard references to
> their associated BO, avoiding reference loops.
>
> In particular, msm uses soft references to optimistically keep around
> mappings until the BO is distroyed. Which obviously won't work if the
> VA (the mapping) is holding a reference to the BO.
Ick! This is all complicated enough. Allow drivers to bypass the proper
reference counting for GEM objects in the context of VM_BO structures seems like
an insane footgun.
I don't understand why MSM would need weak references here. Why does msm need
that, but nouveau, Xe, panthor, PowerVR do not?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists