Hi,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:14 PM Rob Clark robdclark@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -111,23 +111,15 @@ static const struct file_operations msm_gpu_fops = { static int msm_gem_show(struct drm_device *dev, struct seq_file *m) { struct msm_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private;
struct msm_gpu *gpu = priv->gpu; int ret;ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&priv->mm_lock);
ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&priv->obj_lock); if (ret) return ret;
if (gpu) {seq_printf(m, "Active Objects (%s):\n", gpu->name);msm_gem_describe_objects(&gpu->active_list, m);}seq_printf(m, "Inactive Objects:\n");msm_gem_describe_objects(&priv->inactive_dontneed, m);msm_gem_describe_objects(&priv->inactive_willneed, m);
msm_gem_describe_objects(&priv->objects, m);
I guess we no longer sort the by Active and Inactive but that doesn't really matter?
@@ -174,7 +174,13 @@ struct msm_drm_private { struct msm_rd_state *hangrd; /* debugfs to dump hanging submits */ struct msm_perf_state *perf;
/*
/*** List of all GEM objects (mainly for debugfs, protected by obj_lock
It wouldn't hurt to talk about lock ordering here? Like: "If we need the "obj_lock" and a "gem_lock" at the same time we always grab the "obj_lock" first.
@@ -60,13 +60,20 @@ struct msm_gem_object { */ uint8_t vmap_count;
/* And object is either:* inactive - on priv->inactive_list
/*** Node in list of all objects (mainly for debugfs, protected by* struct_mutex
Not "struct_mutex" in comment, right? Maybe "obj_lock" I think?
-Doug