All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: christian.koenig@amd.com
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: add ww_mutex_is_owned_by function v3
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:57:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180220135709.GD25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8fd80334-4d0e-8ed0-8a09-02a7e36a0eae@gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 02:26:55PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > +static inline bool ww_mutex_is_owned_by(struct ww_mutex *lock,
> > > +					struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (ctx)
> > > +		return likely(READ_ONCE(lock->ctx) == ctx);
> > > +	else
> > > +		return likely(__mutex_owner(&lock->base) == current);
> > > +}
> > Much better than the previous version. If you want to bike-shed, you can
> > leave out the 'else' and unindent the last line.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion, going to do this.

You might also want likely(ctx), since ww_mutex without ctx is
a-typical I would think.

> > I do worry about potential users of .ctx = NULL, though. It makes it far
> > too easy to do recursive locking, which is something we should strongly
> > discourage.
> 
> Well, one of the addressed use cases is indeed checking for recursive
> locking. But recursive locking is something rather normal for ww_mutex and
> we are just exercising an existing code path.

But that would be the ctx case, right? I'm not sure there is a lot of
!ctx use out there, and in that case it really is rather like a normal
mutex.

> E.g. the most common use case for the ww_mutex is in the graphics drivers
> where usespace sends us a list of buffer objects to work with.
> 
> Now when userspace sends us duplicates in that buffer list the expectation
> is to get -EALREADY from ww_mutex_lock when we try to lock the same ww_mutex
> twice.

Right, I remember that much.. :-)

> The intention behind this function is now to a) be able to extend those
> checks to make sure user space doesn't sends us potentially harmful nonsense
> and b) allow to check for recursion in TTM during buffer object eviction
> which uses ww_mutex_trylock instead of ww_mutex_lock.

OK, but neither case would in fact need the !ctx case right? That's just
there for completeness sake?

But yes, I cannot think of a better fallback there either.

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: christian.koenig@amd.com
Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: add ww_mutex_is_owned_by function v3
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:57:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180220135709.GD25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8fd80334-4d0e-8ed0-8a09-02a7e36a0eae@gmail.com>

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 02:26:55PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
> > > +static inline bool ww_mutex_is_owned_by(struct ww_mutex *lock,
> > > +					struct ww_acquire_ctx *ctx)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (ctx)
> > > +		return likely(READ_ONCE(lock->ctx) == ctx);
> > > +	else
> > > +		return likely(__mutex_owner(&lock->base) == current);
> > > +}
> > Much better than the previous version. If you want to bike-shed, you can
> > leave out the 'else' and unindent the last line.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion, going to do this.

You might also want likely(ctx), since ww_mutex without ctx is
a-typical I would think.

> > I do worry about potential users of .ctx = NULL, though. It makes it far
> > too easy to do recursive locking, which is something we should strongly
> > discourage.
> 
> Well, one of the addressed use cases is indeed checking for recursive
> locking. But recursive locking is something rather normal for ww_mutex and
> we are just exercising an existing code path.

But that would be the ctx case, right? I'm not sure there is a lot of
!ctx use out there, and in that case it really is rather like a normal
mutex.

> E.g. the most common use case for the ww_mutex is in the graphics drivers
> where usespace sends us a list of buffer objects to work with.
> 
> Now when userspace sends us duplicates in that buffer list the expectation
> is to get -EALREADY from ww_mutex_lock when we try to lock the same ww_mutex
> twice.

Right, I remember that much.. :-)

> The intention behind this function is now to a) be able to extend those
> checks to make sure user space doesn't sends us potentially harmful nonsense
> and b) allow to check for recursion in TTM during buffer object eviction
> which uses ww_mutex_trylock instead of ww_mutex_lock.

OK, but neither case would in fact need the !ctx case right? That's just
there for completeness sake?

But yes, I cannot think of a better fallback there either.

  reply	other threads:[~2018-02-20 13:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-02-20 12:58 [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: add ww_mutex_is_owned_by function v3 Christian König
2018-02-20 12:58 ` Christian König
     [not found] ` <20180220125829.27060-1-christian.koenig-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-20 12:58   ` [PATCH 2/4] drm/amdgpu: use new ww_mutex_is_owned_by function Christian König
2018-02-20 12:58     ` Christian König
     [not found]     ` <20180220125829.27060-2-christian.koenig-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-23  9:48       ` He, Roger
2018-02-23  9:48         ` He, Roger
2018-02-20 12:58   ` [PATCH 3/4] drm/ttm: handle already locked BOs during eviction and swapout Christian König
2018-02-20 12:58     ` Christian König
     [not found]     ` <20180220125829.27060-3-christian.koenig-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-23  9:46       ` He, Roger
2018-02-23  9:46         ` He, Roger
2018-02-23 12:05         ` Christian König
2018-02-23 12:05           ` Christian König
     [not found]           ` <6eadbbea-8eca-a1ab-93bb-d37ae6e5f29d-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-24  3:36             ` He, Roger
2018-02-24  3:36               ` He, Roger
     [not found]               ` <MWHPR1201MB01278E573419210283D68640FDC30-3iK1xFAIwjq9imrIu4W8xGrFom/aUZj6nBOFsp37pqbUKgpGm//BTAC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-24  3:46                 ` He, Roger
2018-02-24  3:46                   ` He, Roger
2018-02-20 12:58   ` [PATCH 4/4] drm/ttm: keep BOs reserved until end of eviction Christian König
2018-02-20 12:58     ` Christian König
     [not found]     ` <20180220125829.27060-4-christian.koenig-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-23  9:29       ` He, Roger
2018-02-23  9:29         ` He, Roger
2018-02-20 13:12 ` [PATCH 1/4] locking/ww_mutex: add ww_mutex_is_owned_by function v3 Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-20 13:12   ` Peter Zijlstra
     [not found]   ` <20180220131253.GF25314-Nxj+rRp3nVydTX5a5knrm8zTDFooKrT+cvkQGrU6aU0@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-20 13:26     ` Christian König
2018-02-20 13:26       ` Christian König
2018-02-20 13:57       ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2018-02-20 13:57         ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-20 14:34         ` Christian König
2018-02-20 14:34           ` Christian König
2018-02-20 14:54           ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-20 14:54             ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-20 15:05             ` Christian König
2018-02-20 15:05               ` Christian König
2018-02-20 15:21               ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-20 15:21                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-02-20 23:56                 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-02-20 23:56                   ` Daniel Vetter
     [not found]                   ` <20180220235621.GD22199-dv86pmgwkMBes7Z6vYuT8azUEOm+Xw19@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-21 10:54                     ` Maarten Lankhorst
2018-02-21 10:54                       ` Maarten Lankhorst
     [not found]                       ` <9d782099-567f-38cb-391a-3c2a50cd5edd-FcfepWsj2zOByvU0x3ry2g@public.gmane.org>
2018-02-21 11:50                         ` Christian König
2018-02-21 11:50                           ` Christian König
2018-02-21 21:10     ` Emil Velikov
2018-02-21 21:10       ` Emil Velikov
2018-02-20 14:02 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-02-20 14:02   ` Daniel Vetter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180220135709.GD25201@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.