[01/13] drm/i915: Drop inspection of execbuf flags during evict
diff mbox series

Message ID 20200124095521.2006632-2-maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com
State New
Headers show
Series
  • drm/i915/gem: Implement parallel execbuffer submission.
Related show

Commit Message

Maarten Lankhorst Jan. 24, 2020, 9:55 a.m. UTC
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

With the goal of removing the serialisation from around execbuf, we will
no longer have the privilege of there being a single execbuf in flight
at any time and so will only be able to inspect the user's flags within
the carefully controlled execbuf context. i915_gem_evict_for_node() is
the only user outside of execbuf that currently peeks at the flag to
convert an overlapping softpinned request from ENOSPC to EINVAL. Retract
this nicety and only report ENOSPC if the location is in current use,
either due to this execbuf or another.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20191203121316.2972257-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c | 15 ++++++---------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Patch
diff mbox series

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
index 0697bedebeef..b75fd3ccd63b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
@@ -292,7 +292,8 @@  int i915_gem_evict_for_node(struct i915_address_space *vm,
 		GEM_BUG_ON(!drm_mm_node_allocated(node));
 		vma = container_of(node, typeof(*vma), node);
 
-		/* If we are using coloring to insert guard pages between
+		/*
+		 * If we are using coloring to insert guard pages between
 		 * different cache domains within the address space, we have
 		 * to check whether the objects on either side of our range
 		 * abutt and conflict. If they are in conflict, then we evict
@@ -309,22 +310,18 @@  int i915_gem_evict_for_node(struct i915_address_space *vm,
 			}
 		}
 
-		if (flags & PIN_NONBLOCK &&
-		    (i915_vma_is_pinned(vma) || i915_vma_is_active(vma))) {
+		if (i915_vma_is_pinned(vma)) {
 			ret = -ENOSPC;
 			break;
 		}
 
-		/* Overlap of objects in the same batch? */
-		if (i915_vma_is_pinned(vma)) {
+		if (flags & PIN_NONBLOCK && i915_vma_is_active(vma)) {
 			ret = -ENOSPC;
-			if (vma->exec_flags &&
-			    *vma->exec_flags & EXEC_OBJECT_PINNED)
-				ret = -EINVAL;
 			break;
 		}
 
-		/* Never show fear in the face of dragons!
+		/*
+		 * Never show fear in the face of dragons!
 		 *
 		 * We cannot directly remove this node from within this
 		 * iterator and as with i915_gem_evict_something() we employ