From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] completely bonkers use of set_need_resched +
 VM_FAULT_NOPAGE
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:29:33 +0200
Message-ID: <20130913082933.GH31370@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20130912150645.GZ31370@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKMK7uFF2GkYapa2_DLv4WYAd0t+POaT+Vy9HG=HQhzMmtH9nA@mail.gmail.com>
 <5231E18D.7070306@canonical.com>
 <5231EF5A.7010901@vmware.com>
 <52323734.4070908@canonical.com>
 <5232B44C.9010408@vmware.com>
 <5232BBE1.5030509@canonical.com>
 <5232C2BB.9070303@vmware.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5232C2BB.9070303@vmware.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, Dave Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
> >>if (!bo_tryreserve()) {
> >>     up_read mmap_sem(); // Release the mmap_sem to avoid deadlocks.
> >>     bo_reserve();               // Wait for the BO to become available (interruptible)
> >>     bo_unreserve();           // Where is bo_wait_unreserved() when we need it, Maarten :P
> >>     return VM_FAULT_RETRY; // Go ahead and retry the VMA walk, after regrabbing
> >>}
> 
> Anyway, could you describe what is wrong, with the above solution, because
> it seems perfectly legal to me.

Luckily the rule of law doesn't have anything to do with this stuff --
at least I sincerely hope so.

The thing that's wrong with that pattern is that its still not
deterministic - although its a lot better than the pure trylock. Because
you have to release and re-acquire with the trylock another user might
have gotten in again. Its utterly prone to starvation.

The acquire+release does remove the dead/life-lock scenario from the
FIFO case, since blocking on the acquire will allow the other task to
run (or even get boosted on -rt).

Aside from that there's nothing particularly wrong with it and lockdep
should be happy afaict (but I haven't had my morning juice yet).