Re: [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915: debugfs spring cleaning

From: David Weinehall <david.weinehall@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] drm/i915: debugfs spring cleaning
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:46:25 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160809074625.747clguwx2wi5uxg@boom> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160808152856.GE23417@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 04:28:56PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 04:20:01PM +0300, David Weinehall wrote:
> > @@ -136,13 +140,14 @@ static void
> >  describe_obj(struct seq_file *m, struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(obj->base.dev);
> > +	struct drm_device *dev = &dev_priv->drm;
> >  	struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
> >  	struct i915_vma *vma;
> >  	unsigned int frontbuffer_bits;
> >  	int pin_count = 0;
> >  	enum intel_engine_id id;
> >  
> > -	lockdep_assert_held(&obj->base.dev->struct_mutex);
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&dev->struct_mutex);
> 
> This is not a good tradeoff however. lockdep_assert_held() is
> conditional code that should be compiled out,
> 
> >  
> >  	seq_printf(m, "%pK: %c%c%c%c%c %8zdKiB %02x %02x [ ",
> >  		   &obj->base,
> > @@ -157,13 +162,13 @@ describe_obj(struct seq_file *m, struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> >  	for_each_engine_id(engine, dev_priv, id)
> >  		seq_printf(m, "%x ",
> >  			   i915_gem_active_get_seqno(&obj->last_read[id],
> > -						     &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex));
> > +						     &dev->struct_mutex));
> 
> Same again here.
> 
> >  	seq_printf(m, "] %x %x%s%s%s",
> >  		   i915_gem_active_get_seqno(&obj->last_write,
> > -					     &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex),
> > +					     &dev->struct_mutex),
> >  		   i915_gem_active_get_seqno(&obj->last_fence,
> > -					     &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex),
> > -		   i915_cache_level_str(to_i915(obj->base.dev), obj->cache_level),
> > +					     &dev->struct_mutex),
> > +		   i915_cache_level_str(dev_priv, obj->cache_level),
> >  		   obj->dirty ? " dirty" : "",
> >  		   obj->madv == I915_MADV_DONTNEED ? " purgeable" : "");
> >  	if (obj->base.name)
> > @@ -201,7 +206,7 @@ describe_obj(struct seq_file *m, struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	engine = i915_gem_active_get_engine(&obj->last_write,
> > -					    &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex);
> > +					    &dev->struct_mutex);
> 
> and again.
> 
> I'm quite happy with dev_priv->drm and need a strong argument to
> introduce dev = &dev_priv->drm locals. dev_priv->drm should avoid the
> need for the compiler to emit any locals should they go out of scope.

Thanks for the feedback.  Will fix.

Regards: David
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx