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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190702141903.1131-1-kraxel@redhat.com> <20190702141903.1131-7-kraxel@redhat.com>
 <CAPaKu7RfLoB=K__wQd92=S20Mt0uqsfyU9oigr8CQ-=gH6OUuA@mail.gmail.com> <20190704111043.5ubc2yjrjphj2iec@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190704111043.5ubc2yjrjphj2iec@sirius.home.kraxel.org>
From:   Chia-I Wu <olvaffe@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:17:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPaKu7S4Og7kda2ZjFtuRv=_W8gpFbD5y7s==0JB5Z34S4Hsjw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/18] drm/virtio: remove ttm calls from in virtio_gpu_object_{reserve,unreserve}
To:     Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Cc:     ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        Gurchetan Singh <gurchetansingh@chromium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        "open list:VIRTIO GPU DRIVER" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 4:10 AM Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>   Hi,
>
> > > -       r = ttm_bo_reserve(&bo->tbo, true, false, NULL);
> > > +       r = reservation_object_lock_interruptible(bo->gem_base.resv, NULL);
> > Can you elaborate a bit about how TTM keeps the BOs alive in, for
> > example, virtio_gpu_transfer_from_host_ioctl?  In that function, only
> > three TTM functions are called: ttm_bo_reserve, ttm_bo_validate, and
> > ttm_bo_unreserve.  I am curious how they keep the BO alive.
>
> It can't go away between reserve and unreserve, and I think it also
> can't be evicted then.  Havn't checked how ttm implements that.
Hm, but the vbuf using the BO outlives the reserve/unreserve section.
The NO_EVICT flag applies only when the BO is still alive.  Someone
needs to hold a reference to the BO to keep it alive, otherwise the BO
can go away before the vbuf is retired.

I can be wrong, but on the other hand, it seems fine for a BO to go
away before the vbuf using it is retired.  When that happens, the
driver emits a RESOURCE_UNREF vbuf which is *after* the original vbuf.


>
> cheers,
>   Gerd
>