dri-devel.lists.freedesktop.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: "Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org,
	"Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>,
	"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
	linux-media@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/11] dma-buf: Restart reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu() after writes
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:43:34 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160923134334.GK3988@dvetter-linux.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160829070834.22296-9-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:08:32AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In order to be completely generic, we have to double check the read
> seqlock after acquiring a reference to the fence. If the driver is
> allocating fences from a SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU, or similar freelist, then
> within an RCU grace period a fence may be freed and reallocated. The RCU
> read side critical section does not prevent this reallocation, instead
> we have to inspect the reservation's seqlock to double check if the
> fences have been reassigned as we were acquiring our reference.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>
> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org

Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 30 ++++++++++--------------------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
> index 3369e4668e96..e74493e7332b 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
> @@ -474,12 +474,13 @@ bool reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(struct reservation_object *obj,
>  					  bool test_all)
>  {
>  	unsigned seq, shared_count;
> -	int ret = true;
> +	int ret;
>  
> +	rcu_read_lock();
>  retry:
> +	ret = true;
>  	shared_count = 0;
>  	seq = read_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq);
> -	rcu_read_lock();
>  
>  	if (test_all) {
>  		unsigned i;
> @@ -490,46 +491,35 @@ retry:
>  		if (fobj)
>  			shared_count = fobj->shared_count;
>  
> -		if (read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, seq))
> -			goto unlock_retry;
> -
>  		for (i = 0; i < shared_count; ++i) {
>  			struct fence *fence = rcu_dereference(fobj->shared[i]);
>  
>  			ret = reservation_object_test_signaled_single(fence);
>  			if (ret < 0)
> -				goto unlock_retry;
> +				goto retry;
>  			else if (!ret)
>  				break;
>  		}
>  
> -		/*
> -		 * There could be a read_seqcount_retry here, but nothing cares
> -		 * about whether it's the old or newer fence pointers that are
> -		 * signaled. That race could still have happened after checking
> -		 * read_seqcount_retry. If you care, use ww_mutex_lock.
> -		 */
> +		if (read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, seq))
> +			goto retry;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (!shared_count) {
>  		struct fence *fence_excl = rcu_dereference(obj->fence_excl);
>  
> -		if (read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, seq))
> -			goto unlock_retry;
> -
>  		if (fence_excl) {
>  			ret = reservation_object_test_signaled_single(
>  								fence_excl);
>  			if (ret < 0)
> -				goto unlock_retry;
> +				goto retry;
> +
> +			if (read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, seq))
> +				goto retry;
>  		}
>  	}
>  
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
>  	return ret;
> -
> -unlock_retry:
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
> -	goto retry;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu);
> -- 
> 2.9.3
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2016-09-23 13:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-29  7:08 [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Remove call to reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu before wait Chris Wilson
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 02/11] drm/etnaviv: Remove manual " Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 12:55   ` Daniel Vetter
2016-10-05 16:15     ` Sumit Semwal
2016-10-10 13:17       ` Lucas Stach
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 03/11] drm/msm: Remove " Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 12:55   ` Daniel Vetter
2016-09-23 13:07     ` [Intel-gfx] " Rob Clark
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 04/11] drm/nouveau: " Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 12:55   ` Daniel Vetter
2016-10-05 16:05     ` Sumit Semwal
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 05/11] drm/vmwgfx: " Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 12:56   ` Daniel Vetter
2016-10-05 16:11     ` [Intel-gfx] " Sumit Semwal
2016-10-05 17:03       ` Sinclair Yeh
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 06/11] dma-buf: Introduce fence_get_rcu_safe() Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 12:59   ` Daniel Vetter
2016-09-23 13:34     ` Markus Heiser
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 07/11] dma-buf: Restart reservation_object_get_fences_rcu() after writes Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 13:03   ` Daniel Vetter
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 08/11] dma-buf: Restart reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() " Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 13:18   ` Daniel Vetter
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 09/11] dma-buf: Restart reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu() " Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 13:43   ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 10/11] dma-buf: Use seqlock to close RCU race in test_signaled_single Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 13:49   ` [Linaro-mm-sig] " Daniel Vetter
2016-09-23 14:02     ` Chris Wilson
2016-09-25 20:43       ` Daniel Vetter
2016-08-29  7:08 ` [PATCH 11/11] dma-buf: Do a fast lockless check for poll with timeout=0 Chris Wilson
2016-08-29 18:16   ` [PATCH] dma-buf/sync-file: Avoid enable fence signaling if poll(.timeout=0) Chris Wilson
2016-08-29 18:26     ` Gustavo Padovan
2016-09-13 14:46       ` Sumit Semwal
2016-09-15  0:00     ` Rafael Antognolli
2016-09-21  7:26       ` Gustavo Padovan
2016-09-21 11:08         ` Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 13:50   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 11/11] dma-buf: Do a fast lockless check for poll with timeout=0 Daniel Vetter
2016-09-23 14:15     ` Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 15:06     ` Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 15:20     ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2016-09-23 17:59       ` Christian König
2016-09-25 20:44         ` Daniel Vetter
2016-08-29  8:20 ` [PATCH 01/11] drm/amdgpu: Remove call to reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu before wait Christian König
2016-09-23 12:54 ` Daniel Vetter
2016-10-05 16:03   ` Sumit Semwal

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=20160923134334.GK3988@dvetter-linux.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-media@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).