Never used as parameter, the only driver actually using this is nouveau
and there it is initialized after the BO is initialized.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Because ttm_bo_force_list_clean() is only called on two occasions:
1. By ttm_bo_evict_mm() during suspend.
2. By ttm_bo_clean_mm() when the driver unloads.
On both cases we absolutely don't want any memory allocation failure.
Signed-off-by: Roger He <Hongbo.He@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Missed in the patche:
dc94777 drm/ttm: enable swapout for reserved BOs during allocation.
don't unreserve the BO if it is not reserved by itself.
Signed-off-by: Roger He <Hongbo.He@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
A BO that's already swapped would be added back to the swap-LRU list
for example if its validation failed under high memory pressure. This
could later lead to swapping it out again and leaking previous swap
storage.
This commit adds a condition to prevent that from happening.
v2: Check page_flags instead of swap_storage
Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
We only need to wait for the contended lock when the reservation object is
shared or when we want to remove everything. A trylock should be sufficient
in all other cases.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Roger He <Hongbo.He@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
There is no guarantee that the next entry on the ddelete list stays on
the list when we drop the locks.
Completely rework this mess by moving processed entries on a temporary
list.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-and-Tested-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Deleted BOs with the same reservation object can be reaped even if they
can't be reserved.
v2: rebase and we still need to remove/add the BO from/to the LRU.
v3: fix remove/add one more time, cleanup the logic a bit
v4: we should still check if the eviction is valuable
v5: add comment suggested by Michel
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-and-Tested-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Consistently use the reservation object wrappers instead of accessing
the ww_mutex directly.
Additional to that use the reservation object wrappers directly instead of
calling __ttm_bo_reserve with fixed parameters.
v2: fix typo
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-and-Tested-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Fixes a use-after-free due to a race condition in
ttm_bo_cleanup_refs_and_unlock, which allows one task to reserve a BO
and destroy its ttm_resv while another task is waiting for it to signal
in reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu.
v2:
* Always initialize bo->ttm_resv in ttm_bo_init_reserved
(Christian König)
Fixes: 0d2bd2ae04 "drm/ttm: fix memory leak while individualizing BOs"
Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@amd.com> # v1
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
With shared reservation objects __ttm_bo_reserve() can easily fail even on
destroyed BOs. This prevents correct handling when we need to individualize
the reservation object.
Fix this by individualizing the object before even trying to reserve it.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Acked-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
we observe abnormal number from:
/sys/devices/virtual/drm/amdttm/buffer_objects/bo_count
bo_count is atomic_inc which is "int" type,
shouldn't explicitly turn it to unsigned long.
Signed-off-by: Monk Liu <monk.liu@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Fixes a false positive from might_sleep(). The reservation object is freshly
initialized, so nobody else can hold the mutex but the function is
called from atomic context.
v2: Correctly invert the check as well.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Use the BOs reservation object when it is put on the ddelete list. This way we
avoid delaying freeing up the BO because of new fences on the reservation object.
This is used by dma-buf and amdgpu's VM page tables.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
With shared reservation objects the assumption that no fence
could have been added isn't true any more.
Additional to that the BO is about to be destroyed, so removing the
fences now has no advantage whatsoever.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
