Re: Gem GTT mmaps..

[Thomas Hellström]

Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Thursday, February 5, 2009 10:37 am Jesse Barnes wrote:
>   
> > So if we leave the lookup reference around from the GTT mapping ioctl, that
> > would take care of new mappings.  And if we added/removed references at VM
> > open/close time, we should be covered for fork.  But is it ok to add a new
> > unref in the finish ioctl for GTT mapped objects?  I don't think so,
> > because we don't know for sure if the caller was the one that created the
> > new fake offset (which would be one way of detecting whether it was GTT
> > mapped). Seems like we need a new unmap ioctl?  Or we could put the mapping
> > ref/unref in libdrm, where it would be tracked on a per-process basis...
> >     
>
> Ah but maybe we should just tear down the fake offset at unmap time; then we'd 
> be able to use it as an existence test for the mapping and get the 
> refcounting right.  The last thing I thought of was whether we'd be ok in a 
> map_gtt -> crash case.  I *think* the vm_close code will deal with that, if 
> we do a deref there?
>   
Yes, an mmap() is always paired with a vm_close(), and the vm_close() 
also happens in a crash situation.

/Thomas

> Thanks,
>   



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/