On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:12 AM, Sudip Mukherjee sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 03:20:35PM +0200, Patrik Jakobsson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Sudip Mukherjee sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 06:20:40PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
If backing->stolen is true then we were freeing backing by calling psb_gtt_free_range() but we called it again after unlocking the mutex. Lets make it NULL after freeing in psb_gtt_free_range() and check for NULL before calling the function for the second time.
Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee sudip@vectorindia.org
Hi Patrik, A gentle ping.
regards sudip
Hi, sorry for the late reply.
Why are we freeing the range twice in the first case?
I think, if backing->stolen is true then backing is released using psb_gtt_free_range() but if backing->stolen is false then the gem object is freed but the backing is not yet freed. To free that backing psb_gtt_free_range() has been called second time. My patch tried to fix the possibility of backing->stolen being true and backing being freed 2 times.
regards sudip
There are some special handling of the stolen framebuffer that I don't remember entirely but the basic concept is that we free the backing when we drop the last reference on a gem object. That will trigger a psb_gtt_free_range(). So in this case it looks to me that the extra free is not needed at all. That's my quick reasoning, feel free to prove me wrong :)
Thanks Patrik