Re: [PATCH v18 04/26] drm/shmem-helper: Refactor locked/unlocked functions

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 13:47:21 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com> wrote:

> On 11/29/23 10:53, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 01:05:14 +0300
> > Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 11/28/23 15:37, Boris Brezillon wrote:  
> >>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:14:42 +0100
> >>> Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>     
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 11:59:11AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:    
> >>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:40:06 +0100
> >>>>> Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>>>>       
> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 02:01:43AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:      
> >>>>>>> Add locked and remove unlocked postfixes from drm-shmem function names,
> >>>>>>> making names consistent with the drm/gem core code.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
> >>>>>>> Suggested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>        
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This contradicts my earlier ack on a patch but...
> >>>>>>       
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c        | 64 +++++++++----------
> >>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c               |  8 +--
> >>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_drv.c       |  2 +-
> >>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem.c       |  6 +-
> >>>>>>>  .../gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem_shrinker.c  |  2 +-
> >>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_mmu.c       |  2 +-
> >>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/v3d/v3d_bo.c                  |  4 +-
> >>>>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/virtio/virtgpu_object.c       |  4 +-
> >>>>>>>  include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h            | 36 +++++------
> >>>>>>>  9 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> >>>>>>> index 0d61f2b3e213..154585ddae08 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ static const struct drm_gem_object_funcs drm_gem_shmem_funcs = {
> >>>>>>>  	.pin = drm_gem_shmem_object_pin,
> >>>>>>>  	.unpin = drm_gem_shmem_object_unpin,
> >>>>>>>  	.get_sg_table = drm_gem_shmem_object_get_sg_table,
> >>>>>>> -	.vmap = drm_gem_shmem_object_vmap,
> >>>>>>> -	.vunmap = drm_gem_shmem_object_vunmap,
> >>>>>>> +	.vmap = drm_gem_shmem_object_vmap_locked,
> >>>>>>> +	.vunmap = drm_gem_shmem_object_vunmap_locked,        
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While I think we should indeed be consistent with the names, I would
> >>>>>> also expect helpers to get the locking right by default.      
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wait, actually I think this patch does what you suggest already. The
> >>>>> _locked() prefix tells the caller: "you should take care of the locking,
> >>>>> I expect the lock to be held when this is hook/function is called". So
> >>>>> helpers without the _locked() prefix take care of the locking (which I
> >>>>> guess matches your 'helpers get the locking right' expectation), and
> >>>>> those with the _locked() prefix don't.      
> >>>>
> >>>> What I meant by "getting the locking right" is indeed a bit ambiguous,
> >>>> sorry. What I'm trying to say I guess is that, in this particular case,
> >>>> I don't think you can expect the vmap implementation to be called with
> >>>> or without the locks held. The doc for that function will say that it's
> >>>> either one or the other, but not both.
> >>>>
> >>>> So helpers should follow what is needed to provide a default vmap/vunmap
> >>>> implementation, including what locking is expected from a vmap/vunmap
> >>>> implementation.    
> >>>
> >>> Hm, yeah, I think that's a matter of taste. When locking is often
> >>> deferrable, like it is in DRM, I find it beneficial for funcions and
> >>> function pointers to reflect the locking scheme, rather than relying on
> >>> people properly reading the doc, especially when this is the only
> >>> outlier in the group of drm_gem_object_funcs we already have, and it's
> >>> not event documented at the drm_gem_object_funcs level [1] :P.
> >>>     
> >>>>
> >>>> If that means that vmap is always called with the locks taken, then
> >>>> drm_gem_shmem_object_vmap can just assume that it will be called with
> >>>> the locks taken and there's no need to mention it in the name (and you
> >>>> can probably sprinkle a couple of lockdep assertion to make sure the
> >>>> locking is indeed consistent).    
> >>>
> >>> Things get very confusing when you end up having drm_gem_shmem helpers
> >>> that are suffixed with _locked() to encode the fact locking is the
> >>> caller's responsibility and no suffix for the
> >>> callee-takes-care-of-the-locking semantics, while other helpers that are
> >>> not suffixed at all actually implement the
> >>> caller-should-take-care-of-the-locking semantics.
> >>>     
> >>>>    
> >>>>>> I'm not sure how reasonable it is, but I think I'd prefer to turn this
> >>>>>> around and keep the drm_gem_shmem_object_vmap/unmap helpers name, and
> >>>>>> convert whatever function needs to be converted to the unlock suffix so
> >>>>>> we get a consistent naming.      
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That would be an _unlocked() prefix if we do it the other way around. I
> >>>>> think the main confusion comes from the names of the hooks in
> >>>>> drm_gem_shmem_funcs. Some of them, like drm_gem_shmem_funcs::v[un]map()
> >>>>> are called with the GEM resv lock held, and locking is handled by the
> >>>>> core, others, like drm_gem_shmem_funcs::[un]pin() are called
> >>>>> without the GEM resv lock held, and locking is deferred to the
> >>>>> implementation. As I said, I don't mind prefixing hooks/helpers with
> >>>>> _unlocked() for those that take care of the locking, and no prefix for
> >>>>> those that expects locks to be held, as long as it's consistent, but I
> >>>>> just wanted to make sure we're on the same page :-).      
> >>>>
> >>>> What about _nolock then? It's the same number of characters than
> >>>> _locked, plus it expresses what the function is (not) doing, not what
> >>>> context it's supposed to be called in?    
> >>>
> >>> Just did a quick
> >>>
> >>>   git grep _nolock drivers/gpu/drm
> >>>
> >>> and it returns zero result, where the _locked/_unlocked pattern seems
> >>> to already be widely used. Not saying we shouldn't change that, but it
> >>> doesn't feel like a change we should do as part of this series.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Boris
> >>>
> >>> [1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc3/source/include/drm/drm_gem.h#L155    
> >>
> >> I'm fine with dropping the _locked() postfix from the common GEM helpers
> >> and documenting the locking rule in drm_gem. Thank you all for the
> >> suggestions :)  
> > 
> > Sorry to disagree, but I think a proper function name/suffix is
> > sometimes worth a few lines of doc. Not saying we should do one or the
> > other, I think we should do both. But when I see a function suffixed
> > _locked, _unlocked or _nolock, I can immediately tell if this function
> > defers the locking to the caller or not, and then go check which lock
> > in the function doc.
> > 
> > And the second thing I'm not happy with, is the fact we go back to an
> > inconsistent naming in drm_gem_shmem_helper.c, where some functions
> > deferring the locking to the caller are suffixed _locked and others are
> > not, because ultimately, you need a different name when you expose the
> > two variants...  
> 
> By the `common GEM helpers` I meant the .vmap drm-shmem common helpers
> used for drm_gem_object_funcs, like was suggested by Maxime. The rest of
> functions will retain the _locked part. Sorry for the confusion :)

Well, even if it's just
s/drm_gem_shmem_v[un]map_locked/drm_gem_shmem_v[un]map/, it's still
inconsistent with the rest of the helpers we have there (_locked suffix
for those deferring the locking to the caller, and no suffix when the
lock is taken by the helper). To be clear, I won't block the patch
because of that, but I still think this is the wrong move...