[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b7fafea0-2a0d-43fd-a3a9-847d61273cee@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 16:49:18 +0200
From: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
To: Rob Clark <robin.clark@....qualcomm.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Connor Abbott <cwabbott0@...il.com>,
Antonino Maniscalco <antomani103@...il.com>,
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 v8 02/42] drm/gpuvm: Add locking helpers
On 6/29/25 4:03 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> For UNMAP/REMAP steps we could be needing to lock objects that are not
> explicitly listed in the VM_BIND ioctl in order to tear-down unmapped
> VAs. These helpers handle locking/preparing the needed objects.
>
> Note that these functions do not strictly require the VM changes to be
> applied before the next drm_gpuvm_sm_map_lock()/_unmap_lock() call. In
> the case that VM changes from an earlier drm_gpuvm_sm_map()/_unmap()
> call result in a differing sequence of steps when the VM changes are
> actually applied, it will be the same set of GEM objects involved, so
> the locking is still correct.
>
> v2: Rename to drm_gpuvm_sm_*_exec_locked() [Danilo]
> v3: Expand comments to show expected usage, and explain how the usage
> is safe in the case of overlapping driver VM_BIND ops.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robin.clark@....qualcomm.com>
> Tested-by: Antonino Maniscalco <antomani103@...il.com>
> Reviewed-by: Antonino Maniscalco <antomani103@...il.com>
Acked-by: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists