dri-devel Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To: "Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
Cc: phasta@mailbox.org, matthew.brost@intel.com,
	sumit.semwal@linaro.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] dma-buf: protected fence ops by RCU v5
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 15:20:28 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260213152028.52e15600@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260210102232.1642-2-christian.koenig@amd.com>

On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 11:01:56 +0100
"Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> wrote:

> At first glance it is counter intuitive to protect a constant function
> pointer table by RCU, but this allows modules providing the function
> table to unload by waiting for an RCU grace period.
> 
> v2: make one the now duplicated lockdep warnings a comment instead.
> v3: Add more documentation to ->wait and ->release callback.
> v4: fix typo in documentation
> v5: rebased on drm-tip
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>

Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>

> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  include/linux/dma-fence.h   | 29 ++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> index e05beae6e407..de9bf18be3d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> @@ -522,6 +522,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_signal);
>  signed long
>  dma_fence_wait_timeout(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout)
>  {
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
>  	signed long ret;
>  
>  	if (WARN_ON(timeout < 0))
> @@ -533,15 +534,21 @@ dma_fence_wait_timeout(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout)
>  
>  	dma_fence_enable_sw_signaling(fence);
>  
> -	if (trace_dma_fence_wait_start_enabled()) {
> -		rcu_read_lock();
> -		trace_dma_fence_wait_start(fence);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(fence->ops);
> +	trace_dma_fence_wait_start(fence);
> +	if (ops->wait) {
> +		/*
> +		 * Implementing the wait ops is deprecated and not supported for
> +		 * issuer independent fences, so it is ok to use the ops outside
> +		 * the RCU protected section.
> +		 */
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		ret = ops->wait(fence, intr, timeout);
> +	} else {
>  		rcu_read_unlock();
> -	}
> -	if (fence->ops->wait)
> -		ret = fence->ops->wait(fence, intr, timeout);
> -	else
>  		ret = dma_fence_default_wait(fence, intr, timeout);
> +	}
>  	if (trace_dma_fence_wait_end_enabled()) {
>  		rcu_read_lock();
>  		trace_dma_fence_wait_end(fence);
> @@ -562,6 +569,7 @@ void dma_fence_release(struct kref *kref)
>  {
>  	struct dma_fence *fence =
>  		container_of(kref, struct dma_fence, refcount);
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
>  
>  	rcu_read_lock();
>  	trace_dma_fence_destroy(fence);
> @@ -593,12 +601,12 @@ void dma_fence_release(struct kref *kref)
>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(fence->lock, flags);
>  	}
>  
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
> -
> -	if (fence->ops->release)
> -		fence->ops->release(fence);
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(fence->ops);
> +	if (ops->release)
> +		ops->release(fence);
>  	else
>  		dma_fence_free(fence);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_release);
>  
> @@ -617,6 +625,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_free);
>  
>  static bool __dma_fence_enable_signaling(struct dma_fence *fence)
>  {
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
>  	bool was_set;
>  
>  	lockdep_assert_held(fence->lock);
> @@ -627,14 +636,18 @@ static bool __dma_fence_enable_signaling(struct dma_fence *fence)
>  	if (dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(fence))
>  		return false;
>  
> -	if (!was_set && fence->ops->enable_signaling) {
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(fence->ops);
> +	if (!was_set && ops->enable_signaling) {
>  		trace_dma_fence_enable_signal(fence);
>  
> -		if (!fence->ops->enable_signaling(fence)) {
> +		if (!ops->enable_signaling(fence)) {
> +			rcu_read_unlock();
>  			dma_fence_signal_locked(fence);
>  			return false;
>  		}
>  	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  	return true;
>  }
> @@ -1007,8 +1020,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_wait_any_timeout);
>   */
>  void dma_fence_set_deadline(struct dma_fence *fence, ktime_t deadline)
>  {
> -	if (fence->ops->set_deadline && !dma_fence_is_signaled(fence))
> -		fence->ops->set_deadline(fence, deadline);
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(fence->ops);
> +	if (ops->set_deadline && !dma_fence_is_signaled(fence))
> +		ops->set_deadline(fence, deadline);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_set_deadline);
>  
> @@ -1049,7 +1067,12 @@ __dma_fence_init(struct dma_fence *fence, const struct dma_fence_ops *ops,
>  	BUG_ON(!ops || !ops->get_driver_name || !ops->get_timeline_name);
>  
>  	kref_init(&fence->refcount);
> -	fence->ops = ops;
> +	/*
> +	 * At first glance it is counter intuitive to protect a constant
> +	 * function pointer table by RCU, but this allows modules providing the
> +	 * function table to unload by waiting for an RCU grace period.
> +	 */
> +	RCU_INIT_POINTER(fence->ops, ops);
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fence->cb_list);
>  	fence->lock = lock;
>  	fence->context = context;
> @@ -1129,11 +1152,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_init64);
>   */
>  const char __rcu *dma_fence_driver_name(struct dma_fence *fence)
>  {
> -	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held(),
> -			 "RCU protection is required for safe access to returned string");
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
>  
> +	/* RCU protection is required for safe access to returned string */
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(fence->ops);
>  	if (!dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(fence))
> -		return (const char __rcu *)fence->ops->get_driver_name(fence);
> +		return (const char __rcu *)ops->get_driver_name(fence);
>  	else
>  		return (const char __rcu *)"detached-driver";
>  }
> @@ -1161,11 +1185,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_driver_name);
>   */
>  const char __rcu *dma_fence_timeline_name(struct dma_fence *fence)
>  {
> -	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_read_lock_held(),
> -			 "RCU protection is required for safe access to returned string");
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
>  
> +	/* RCU protection is required for safe access to returned string */
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(fence->ops);
>  	if (!dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(fence))
> -		return (const char __rcu *)fence->ops->get_driver_name(fence);
> +		return (const char __rcu *)ops->get_driver_name(fence);
>  	else
>  		return (const char __rcu *)"signaled-timeline";
>  }
> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h
> index 9c4d25289239..6bf4feb0e01f 100644
> --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h
> +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h
> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ struct seq_file;
>   */
>  struct dma_fence {
>  	spinlock_t *lock;
> -	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops __rcu *ops;
>  	/*
>  	 * We clear the callback list on kref_put so that by the time we
>  	 * release the fence it is unused. No one should be adding to the
> @@ -220,6 +220,10 @@ struct dma_fence_ops {
>  	 * timed out. Can also return other error values on custom implementations,
>  	 * which should be treated as if the fence is signaled. For example a hardware
>  	 * lockup could be reported like that.
> +	 *
> +	 * Implementing this callback prevents the fence from detaching after
> +	 * signaling and so it is mandatory for the module providing the
> +	 * dma_fence_ops to stay loaded as long as the dma_fence exists.
>  	 */
>  	signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence,
>  			    bool intr, signed long timeout);
> @@ -231,6 +235,13 @@ struct dma_fence_ops {
>  	 * Can be called from irq context.  This callback is optional. If it is
>  	 * NULL, then dma_fence_free() is instead called as the default
>  	 * implementation.
> +	 *
> +	 * Implementing this callback prevents the fence from detaching after
> +	 * signaling and so it is mandatory for the module providing the
> +	 * dma_fence_ops to stay loaded as long as the dma_fence exists.
> +	 *
> +	 * If the callback is implemented the memory backing the dma_fence
> +	 * object must be freed RCU safe.
>  	 */
>  	void (*release)(struct dma_fence *fence);
>  
> @@ -454,13 +465,19 @@ dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(struct dma_fence *fence)
>  static inline bool
>  dma_fence_is_signaled_locked(struct dma_fence *fence)
>  {
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
> +
>  	if (dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(fence))
>  		return true;
>  
> -	if (fence->ops->signaled && fence->ops->signaled(fence)) {
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(fence->ops);
> +	if (ops->signaled && ops->signaled(fence)) {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		dma_fence_signal_locked(fence);
>  		return true;
>  	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  	return false;
>  }
> @@ -484,13 +501,19 @@ dma_fence_is_signaled_locked(struct dma_fence *fence)
>  static inline bool
>  dma_fence_is_signaled(struct dma_fence *fence)
>  {
> +	const struct dma_fence_ops *ops;
> +
>  	if (dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(fence))
>  		return true;
>  
> -	if (fence->ops->signaled && fence->ops->signaled(fence)) {
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	ops = rcu_dereference(fence->ops);
> +	if (ops->signaled && ops->signaled(fence)) {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
>  		dma_fence_signal(fence);
>  		return true;
>  	}
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  
>  	return false;
>  }


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-02-13 14:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-02-10 10:01 Independence for dma_fences! v7 Christian König
2026-02-10 10:01 ` [PATCH 1/8] dma-buf: protected fence ops by RCU v5 Christian König
2026-02-11 10:06   ` Philipp Stanner
2026-02-11 15:43     ` Christian König
2026-02-12  8:56       ` Philipp Stanner
2026-02-19 10:23         ` Christian König
2026-02-19 10:35           ` Philipp Stanner
2026-02-19 12:49             ` Christian König
2026-02-12  9:03       ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2026-02-12  9:31   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2026-02-13 14:20   ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2026-02-10 10:01 ` [PATCH 2/8] dma-buf: detach fence ops on signal v2 Christian König
2026-02-13 14:22   ` Boris Brezillon
2026-02-19 12:52     ` Christian König
2026-02-19 15:49       ` Boris Brezillon
2026-02-10 10:01 ` [PATCH 3/8] dma-buf: abstract fence locking v2 Christian König
2026-02-12  9:07   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2026-02-10 10:01 ` [PATCH 4/8] dma-buf: inline spinlock for fence protection v4 Christian König
2026-02-11  9:50   ` Philipp Stanner
2026-02-11 14:59     ` Christian König
2026-02-12  9:01       ` Philipp Stanner
2026-02-12  9:16   ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2026-02-13 14:27   ` Boris Brezillon
2026-02-15  8:48     ` Boris Brezillon
2026-02-16  7:33     ` Philipp Stanner
2026-02-16  9:48       ` Boris Brezillon
2026-02-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 5/8] dma-buf/selftests: test RCU ops and inline lock v2 Christian König
2026-02-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 6/8] dma-buf: use inline lock for the stub fence v2 Christian König
2026-02-13 14:32   ` Boris Brezillon
2026-02-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 7/8] dma-buf: use inline lock for the dma-fence-array Christian König
2026-02-13 14:33   ` Boris Brezillon
2026-02-10 10:02 ` [PATCH 8/8] dma-buf: use inline lock for the dma-fence-chain Christian König
2026-02-13 14:33   ` Boris Brezillon

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=20260213152028.52e15600@fedora \
    --to=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
    --cc=ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
    --cc=phasta@mailbox.org \
    --cc=sumit.semwal@linaro.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