Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915/gvt: Pin the per-engine GVT shadow contexts

2019-04-25 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Zhenyu Wang (2019-04-26 07:04:45) > On 2019.04.25 17:23:44 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-04-25 06:42:02) > > > Our eventual goal is to rid request construction of struct_mutex, with > > > the short term step of lifting the struct_mutex requirements into the > > >

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915/gvt: Pin the per-engine GVT shadow contexts

2019-04-25 Thread Zhenyu Wang
On 2019.04.25 17:23:44 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-04-25 06:42:02) > > Our eventual goal is to rid request construction of struct_mutex, with > > the short term step of lifting the struct_mutex requirements into the > > higher levels (i.e. the caller must ensure that the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915/gvt: Pin the per-engine GVT shadow contexts

2019-04-25 Thread Zhenyu Wang
On 2019.04.25 17:23:44 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-04-25 06:42:02) > > Our eventual goal is to rid request construction of struct_mutex, with > > the short term step of lifting the struct_mutex requirements into the > > higher levels (i.e. the caller must ensure that the

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915/gvt: Pin the per-engine GVT shadow contexts

2019-04-25 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-04-25 06:42:02) > Our eventual goal is to rid request construction of struct_mutex, with > the short term step of lifting the struct_mutex requirements into the > higher levels (i.e. the caller must ensure that the context is already > pinned into the GTT). In this patch,

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915/gvt: Pin the per-engine GVT shadow contexts

2019-04-24 Thread Chris Wilson
Our eventual goal is to rid request construction of struct_mutex, with the short term step of lifting the struct_mutex requirements into the higher levels (i.e. the caller must ensure that the context is already pinned into the GTT). In this patch, we pin GVT's shadow context upon allocation and so