Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v13 03/10] drm/shmem-helper: Add pages_pin_count field

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>]

Hi Dmitry,

Sorry for chiming in only now :-/.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 05:26:52 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com> wrote:

> And new pages_pin_count field to struct drm_gem_shmem_object that will
> determine whether pages are evictable by memory shrinker. The pages will
> be evictable only when pages_pin_count=0. This patch prepares code for
> addition of the memory shrinker that will utilize the new field.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 7 +++++++
>  include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h     | 9 +++++++++
>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> index 4da9c9c39b9a..81d61791f874 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static int drm_gem_shmem_pin_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
>  	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, obj->import_attach);
>  
>  	ret = drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(shmem);
> +	if (!ret)
> +		shmem->pages_pin_count++;
>  
>  	return ret;
>  }
> @@ -289,7 +291,12 @@ static void drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
>  
>  	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, obj->import_attach);
>  
> +	if (drm_WARN_ON_ONCE(obj->dev, !shmem->pages_pin_count))
> +		return;
> +
>  	drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(shmem);
> +
> +	shmem->pages_pin_count--;
>  }
>  
>  /**
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h
> index 20ddcd799df9..7d823c9fc480 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h
> @@ -39,6 +39,15 @@ struct drm_gem_shmem_object {
>  	 */
>  	unsigned int pages_use_count;
>  
> +	/**
> +	 * @pages_pin_count:
> +	 *
> +	 * Reference count on the pinned pages table.
> +	 * The pages allowed to be evicted by memory shrinker
> +	 * only when the count is zero.
> +	 */
> +	unsigned int pages_pin_count;

s/pages_pin_count/pin_count/ ?

And do we really need both pages_pin_count and pages_use_count. Looks
like they both serve the same purpose, with one exception:
pages_use_count is also incremented in the get_pages_sgt_locked() path,
but you probably don't want it to prevent GEM eviction. Assuming
your goal with this pin_count field is to check if a GEM object is
evictable, it can be done with something like

bool
drm_gem_shmem_is_evictable_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
{
	dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);

	return shmem->pages_use_count == (shmem->sgt ? 1 : 0);
}

I mean, I'm not against renaming pages_use_count into pin_count, but,
unless I'm missing something, I don't see a good reason to keep both.

Regards,

Boris