Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:21:58 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     christian.koenig@amd.com
Cc:     dev@mblankhorst.nl, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: add ww_mutex_is_owned_by function
 v3
Message-ID: <20180220152158.GH25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180220125829.27060-1-christian.koenig@amd.com>
 <20180220131253.GF25314@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <8fd80334-4d0e-8ed0-8a09-02a7e36a0eae@gmail.com>
 <20180220135709.GD25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <b625cbca-c05a-afd1-fe97-a7a0760383c1@amd.com>
 <20180220145413.GF25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <2dac8ec9-c54a-7dd1-af4e-62f2bc1a959c@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2dac8ec9-c54a-7dd1-af4e-62f2bc1a959c@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 04:05:49PM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote:
> Am 20.02.2018 um 15:54 schrieb Peter Zijlstra:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:34:07PM +0100, Christian K?nig wrote:
> > > > OK, but neither case would in fact need the !ctx case right? That's just
> > > > there for completeness sake?
> > > Unfortunately not. TTM uses trylock to lock BOs which are about to be
> > > evicted to make room for all the BOs locked with a ctx.
> > > 
> > > I need to be able to distinct between the BOs which are trylocked and those
> > > which are locked with a ctx.
> > > 
> > > Writing this I actually noticed the current version is buggy, cause even
> > > when we check the mutex owner we still need to make sure that the ctx in the
> > > lock is NULL.
> > Hurm... I can't remember why trylocks behave like that, and it seems
> > rather unfortunate / inconsistent.
> 
> Actually for me that is rather fortunate, cause I need to distinct between
> the locks acquired through trylock and lock.

I suppose that would always be possible using:
ww_mutex_trylock(.ctx=NULL), and it could be that there simply weren't
any immediate uses for a !NULL trylock and it was thus not implemented.

But that is all very long ago..