From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Hellstrom Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] drm/ttm: lru lock atomicity removal Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:59:16 +0100 Message-ID: <50B8D7D4.2030805@vmware.com> References: <50B8A254.904@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com [208.91.2.12]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FFFDE6170 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:59:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50B8A254.904@canonical.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces+sf-dri-devel=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org To: Maarten Lankhorst Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org On 11/30/2012 01:11 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > With all the previous patches there shouldn't be anything lying on the reservations being atomic > with removal of the bo's from the lru lists any more. > > As such we can finally fix the locking primitives and make it act like normal mutex calls. > > Patch 1 is the actual removal of the guarantee in ttm_bo_reserve > patch 2 is a cleanup of ttm_eu_backoff_reservation from removing that guarantee > patch 3...6 are introducing ttm_bo_reserve_slowpath. > > After this series, this should directly map to my proposed extensions to mutex. > Maarten, I'm going on parental leave next week and don't have time to review these patches in detail for at least three weeks. In principle I'm OK with the changes, introduced, though, but I guess we need another reviewer to step up. /Thomas