On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 09:39:07 -0300, Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski herton.krzesinski@canonical.com wrote:
I don't know if it's the most correct fix, but perhaps the simple fix is needed in the code. It's against latest Linus tree. We may have an already removed client_list, or we didn't add any item to client_list (file_priv NULL in i915_add_request)
Signed-off-by: Herton Ronaldo Krzesinski herton.krzesinski@canonical.com
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c index 36e66cc..6077c0d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c @@ -1749,8 +1749,10 @@ i915_gem_request_remove_from_client(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) return;
spin_lock(&file_priv->mm.lock);
- list_del(&request->client_list);
- request->file_priv = NULL;
- if (request->file_priv) {
list_del(&request->client_list);request->file_priv = NULL;- } spin_unlock(&file_priv->mm.lock);
}
This is the single chunk required. I had thought that the actual insertion/deletion was serialised under the struct mutex and the intention of the spinlock was to protect the unlocked list traversal during throttling. However, I missed that i915_gem_release() is also called without struct mutex and so we do need the double check for i915_gem_request_remove_from_client(). -Chris