From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] drm/i915: Remove node only when
	allocated
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:37:56 -0700
Message-ID: <20130813013756.GA19697@bwidawsk.net>
References: <1376111536-12461-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
	<1376111536-12461-3-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
	<20130810084505.GD3561@cantiga.alporthouse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail.bwidawsk.net (bwidawsk.net [166.78.191.112])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3614E73F4
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:38:00 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130810084505.GD3561@cantiga.alporthouse.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>, Intel GFX <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:45:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 10:12:14PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > In upcoming code, it will be possible for a vma to have been created,
> > but no space reserved for it in the address space. The drm_mm semantics
> > are such that trying to remove an unallocated node is not allowed.
> 
> But not allocated during unbind, i.e. calling unbind() before bind()?
> That seems scary enough.
> -Chris
> 

The condition can occur if we create a vma, fail to bind it, and then
free up the object (which tries to unbind). As I alluded to, this
cannot happen until we do the execbufer vma creation.

The example for which is can happen is if we have some object created,
with a vma

AFAICT, this condition cannot occur until we actually are using multiple
VMs, but once we are the following can occur:

object X created for context Y
VMA-Y created for object X
VMA-Z created for object X, but fails before or during bind
    VMA-Z persists
object X destroyed
    free calls unbind on all VMAs. VMA-Z has no node allocated for it.

One way to may this better is to not call unbind() if it isn't
allocated, and simply call vma_destroy(). I don't really care. You tell
me what you want.


-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center