On pe, 2016-11-18 at 10:14 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 11:18:09AM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote: > > i915_vma_is_pinned() being true will exit this loop with -ENOSPC with > > or without NOBLOCK, just skipping the exec_entry test without it. I > > would clarify that. Now it's bit odd. > > It's a necessary test for use by execbuf. The interface is that it tests > a location first with NONBLOCK before deciding on whether it is a good > final location. (With various other hints as to whether any eviction is > a good idea, vs whether it mandatory to use this location.) >
Well, I do not object the new way of formatting it, it's more explicit. But does GCC do equally good job still? > > > - ret = i915_vma_unbind(vma); > > > - if (ret) > > > - return ret; > > > + __i915_vma_pin(vma); > > > > I don't quite see why? Are you expecting the iteration to hit same vma > > twice? Or somebody moving it while we iterate. > > The unbind may causes a free of any member on this list, so the pinning > prevents other vma from being unbound whilst waiting on this one. It > used to be a big deal, but since the various reworking the deferred free > hides the oops. Drop a comment. Regards, Joonas -- Joonas Lahtinen Open Source Technology Center Intel Corporation _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
