On 10/07/2025 04:05, lihongtao wrote: > obj->mappings.lock should be destroyed when free > panfrost gem object in panfrost_gem_free_object.
mutex_destroy() doesn't actually release any resources. It is purely a debugging feature (if CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is disabled then it is compiled away completely). So it's not a "leak" as such. But there is some value in using it as it would (in debug builds) warn us if we attempt to destroy a locked mutex or attempt to use a mutex after the destroy. But if we're going to fix this I think we should be more complete. A quick grep should we have 6 different mutexes in panfrost: panfrost_device.c: mutex_init(&pfdev->sched_lock); panfrost_device.c: mutex_init(&pfdev->debugfs.gems_lock); panfrost_drv.c: mutex_init(&pfdev->shrinker_lock); panfrost_gem.c: mutex_init(&obj->mappings.lock); panfrost_gem.c: mutex_init(&obj->label.lock); panfrost_perfcnt.c: mutex_init(&perfcnt->lock); But there's only one existing call to mutex_destroy(): panfrost_gem.c: mutex_destroy(&bo->label.lock); It would be good to consider if the other mutexes should also be destroyed. Thanks, Steve > > Signed-off-by: lihongtao <lihong...@kylinos.cn> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem.c > b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem.c > index 963f04ba2de6..00549f482eec 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem.c > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ static void panfrost_gem_free_object(struct drm_gem_object > *obj) > kvfree(bo->sgts); > } > > + mutex_destroy(&bo->mappings.lock); > drm_gem_shmem_free(&bo->base); > } >
