Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes: > While our little rcu worker might be able to be replaced now by the > dedicated rcu_work, in the meantime we should mark up the rcu_head for > correct debugobjects tracking. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
I got distracted on looking how the epoch works. Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > index 24f126ccf21e..5537f4030717 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > @@ -3557,6 +3557,8 @@ static void __sleep_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu) > struct sleep_rcu_work *s = container_of(rcu, typeof(*s), rcu); > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = s->i915; > > + destroy_rcu_head(&s->rcu); > + > if (same_epoch(i915, s->epoch)) { > INIT_WORK(&s->work, __sleep_work); > queue_work(i915->wq, &s->work); > @@ -3673,6 +3675,7 @@ i915_gem_idle_work_handler(struct work_struct *work) > if (same_epoch(dev_priv, epoch)) { > struct sleep_rcu_work *s = kmalloc(sizeof(*s), GFP_KERNEL); > if (s) { > + init_rcu_head(&s->rcu); > s->i915 = dev_priv; > s->epoch = epoch; > call_rcu(&s->rcu, __sleep_rcu); > -- > 2.19.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
