On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 14:28, Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com wrote:
Now that we cannot unbind kill the currently locked object directly
"unbind kill"
because we're removing short term pinning, we may have to unbind the object from gtt manually, using a i915_gem_evict_vm() call.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com
Maybe mention that this only in preparation for some future patches, once the actual eviction is trylock and evict_for_vm can also handle shared dma-resv? At this point in the series we shouldn't expect to hit -ENOSPC, right?
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c index af81d6c3332a..00cd9642669a 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c @@ -358,8 +358,22 @@ static vm_fault_t vm_fault_gtt(struct vm_fault *vmf) vma = i915_gem_object_ggtt_pin_ww(obj, &ww, &view, 0, 0, flags); }
/* The entire mappable GGTT is pinned? Unexpected! */GEM_BUG_ON(vma == ERR_PTR(-ENOSPC));
/** The entire mappable GGTT is pinned? Unexpected!* Try to evict the object we locked too, as normally we skip it* due to lack of short term pinning inside execbuf.*/if (vma == ERR_PTR(-ENOSPC)) {ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&ggtt->vm.mutex);if (!ret) {ret = i915_gem_evict_vm(&ggtt->vm);mutex_unlock(&ggtt->vm.mutex);}if (ret)goto err_reset;vma = i915_gem_object_ggtt_pin_ww(obj, &ww, &view, 0, 0, flags);}GEM_WARN_ON(vma == ERR_PTR(-ENOSPC));
Looks like this is being triggered in CI, I assume because the trylock could easily fail, due to contention? Is this expected for now? Do we keep the WARN and track it as a known issue?
} if (IS_ERR(vma)) { ret = PTR_ERR(vma);-- 2.34.1