Otherwise ttm throws a WARN because we try to pin without a reservation.
Fixes: 9d36d4320462 ("drm/qxl: switch over to the new pin interface")
Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c
index d3635e3e3267..eb45267d51db 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ int qxl_bo_create(struct qxl_device *qdev,
return r;
}
if (pinned)
- ttm_bo_pin(&bo->tbo);
+ qxl_bo_pin(bo);
*bo_ptr = bo;
return 0;
}
--
2.27.0
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:51:15AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:> Otherwise ttm throws a WARN because we try to pin without a reservation. > > Fixes: 9d36d4320462 ("drm/qxl: switch over to the new pin interface") > Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c > index d3635e3e3267..eb45267d51db 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ int qxl_bo_create(struct qxl_device *qdev, > return r; > } > if (pinned) > - ttm_bo_pin(&bo->tbo); > + qxl_bo_pin(bo);I think this is now after ttm_bo_init, and at that point the object is visible to lru users and everything. So I do think you need to grab locks here instead of just incrementing the pin count alone. It's also I think a bit racy, since ttm_bo_init drops the lock, so someone might have snuck in and evicted the object already. I think what you need is to call ttm_bo_init_reserved, then ttm_bo_pin, then ttm_bo_unreserve, all explicitly. -Daniel> *bo_ptr = bo; > return 0; > } > -- > 2.27.0 >-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
Am 29.09.20 um 12:53 schrieb Daniel Vetter:> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:51:15AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Otherwise ttm throws a WARN because we try to pin without a reservation. >> >> Fixes: 9d36d4320462 ("drm/qxl: switch over to the new pin interface") >> Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c >> index d3635e3e3267..eb45267d51db 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/qxl/qxl_object.c >> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ int qxl_bo_create(struct qxl_device *qdev, >> return r; >> } >> if (pinned) >> - ttm_bo_pin(&bo->tbo); >> + qxl_bo_pin(bo); > I think this is now after ttm_bo_init, and at that point the object is > visible to lru users and everything. So I do think you need to grab locks > here instead of just incrementing the pin count alone. > > It's also I think a bit racy, since ttm_bo_init drops the lock, so someone > might have snuck in and evicted the object already. > > I think what you need is to call ttm_bo_init_reserved, then ttm_bo_pin, > then ttm_bo_unreserve, all explicitly.Ah, yes Daniel is right. I thought I've fixed that up, but looks like I only did that for VMWGFX. Sorry for the noise, fix to correctly address this is underway. Regards, Christian.> -Daniel > >> *bo_ptr = bo; >> return 0; >> } >> -- >> 2.27.0 >>