From: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@redhat.com>
Cc: nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/nouveau: gk20a: Turn instmem lock into mutex
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:25:42 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6febf110-a04a-da21-20b4-638bde1eaf36@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170223162015.GA15693@ulmo.ba.sec>
On 02/24/2017 01:20 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:03:07PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>
>> The gk20a implementation of instance memory uses vmap()/vunmap() to map
>> memory regions into the kernel's virtual address space. These functions
>> may sleep, so protecting them by a spin lock is not safe. This triggers
>> a warning if the DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP Kconfig option is enabled. Fix this
>> by using a mutex instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/instmem/gk20a.c | 19 ++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> Alex, could you take a look at this?
Sorry! Yes, using a mutex here should be safe since vmap() can sleep
anyway. And I don't think this code can ever be reached in atomic
context (Ben can confirm that last point). Tested this patch and it
seems to work like a charm.
Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Tested-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
>
> Thanks,
> Thierry
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/instmem/gk20a.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/instmem/gk20a.c
>> index a6a7fa0d7679..7f5244d57d2f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/instmem/gk20a.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nvkm/subdev/instmem/gk20a.c
>> @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ struct gk20a_instmem {
>> struct nvkm_instmem base;
>>
>> /* protects vaddr_* and gk20a_instobj::vaddr* */
>> - spinlock_t lock;
>> + struct mutex lock;
>>
>> /* CPU mappings LRU */
>> unsigned int vaddr_use;
>> @@ -184,11 +184,10 @@ gk20a_instobj_acquire_iommu(struct nvkm_memory *memory)
>> struct gk20a_instmem *imem = node->base.imem;
>> struct nvkm_ltc *ltc = imem->base.subdev.device->ltc;
>> const u64 size = nvkm_memory_size(memory);
>> - unsigned long flags;
>>
>> nvkm_ltc_flush(ltc);
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&imem->lock, flags);
>> + mutex_lock(&imem->lock);
>>
>> if (node->base.vaddr) {
>> if (!node->use_cpt) {
>> @@ -216,7 +215,7 @@ gk20a_instobj_acquire_iommu(struct nvkm_memory *memory)
>>
>> out:
>> node->use_cpt++;
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&imem->lock, flags);
>> + mutex_unlock(&imem->lock);
>>
>> return node->base.vaddr;
>> }
>> @@ -239,9 +238,8 @@ gk20a_instobj_release_iommu(struct nvkm_memory *memory)
>> struct gk20a_instobj_iommu *node = gk20a_instobj_iommu(memory);
>> struct gk20a_instmem *imem = node->base.imem;
>> struct nvkm_ltc *ltc = imem->base.subdev.device->ltc;
>> - unsigned long flags;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&imem->lock, flags);
>> + mutex_lock(&imem->lock);
>>
>> /* we should at least have one user to release... */
>> if (WARN_ON(node->use_cpt == 0))
>> @@ -252,7 +250,7 @@ gk20a_instobj_release_iommu(struct nvkm_memory *memory)
>> list_add_tail(&node->vaddr_node, &imem->vaddr_lru);
>>
>> out:
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&imem->lock, flags);
>> + mutex_unlock(&imem->lock);
>>
>> wmb();
>> nvkm_ltc_invalidate(ltc);
>> @@ -306,19 +304,18 @@ gk20a_instobj_dtor_iommu(struct nvkm_memory *memory)
>> struct gk20a_instmem *imem = node->base.imem;
>> struct device *dev = imem->base.subdev.device->dev;
>> struct nvkm_mm_node *r;
>> - unsigned long flags;
>> int i;
>>
>> if (unlikely(list_empty(&node->base.mem.regions)))
>> goto out;
>>
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&imem->lock, flags);
>> + mutex_lock(&imem->lock);
>>
>> /* vaddr has already been recycled */
>> if (node->base.vaddr)
>> gk20a_instobj_iommu_recycle_vaddr(node);
>>
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&imem->lock, flags);
>> + mutex_unlock(&imem->lock);
>>
>> r = list_first_entry(&node->base.mem.regions, struct nvkm_mm_node,
>> rl_entry);
>> @@ -580,7 +577,7 @@ gk20a_instmem_new(struct nvkm_device *device, int index,
>> if (!(imem = kzalloc(sizeof(*imem), GFP_KERNEL)))
>> return -ENOMEM;
>> nvkm_instmem_ctor(&gk20a_instmem, device, index, &imem->base);
>> - spin_lock_init(&imem->lock);
>> + mutex_init(&imem->lock);
>> *pimem = &imem->base;
>>
>> /* do not allow more than 1MB of CPU-mapped instmem */
>> --
>> 2.11.0
>>
>
> * Unknown Key
> * 0x7F3EB3A1
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-24 7:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-30 20:03 [PATCH] drm/nouveau: gk20a: Turn instmem lock into mutex Thierry Reding
2017-02-23 16:20 ` Thierry Reding
2017-02-24 7:25 ` Alexandre Courbot [this message]
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=6febf110-a04a-da21-20b4-638bde1eaf36@nvidia.com \
--to=acourbot@nvidia.com \
--cc=bskeggs@redhat.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
/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