Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/fbc: Avoid full proxy f_ops for FBC debug attributes

[Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 06:18:12AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 11:36:13PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 12:13:56PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 01:30:53PM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > > > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > > > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > > > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > > > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > > > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > > > wrapping at runtime.
> > > > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > > > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead.  The
> > > > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > > > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > > > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > > > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > > >
> > > > This Change is reported by the debugfs_simple_attr.cocci Coccinelle
> > > > semantic patch.
> > >
> > > I just checked here with
> > > $ make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=context COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> >
> > Hello Rodrigo,
> > Thank you so much for your review and feedback on the patch proposal.
> >
> > >
> > > The part reported by the this script is the s/SIMPLE/DEBUGFS
> > > but the change to the unsafe option is not.
> >
> > If you look at the original commit of this coccinelle file, it calls out the
> > need for pairing debugfs_create_file_unsafe() as well. Please review this
> >
> > commitID: 5103068eaca2: ("debugfs, coccinelle: check for obsolete DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE() usage")
>
> +Nicolai and Julia.
>
> It looks like coccinelle got right the
> - DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(dsa_fops, dsa_get, dsa_set, dsa_fmt);
> + DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(dsa_fops, dsa_get, dsa_set, dsa_fmt);
>
> but it failed badly on
> - debugfs_create_file(name, mode, parent, data, &dsa_fops)
> + debugfs_create_file_unsafe(name, mode, parent, data, &dsa_fops)
>
> >
> > Based on my review of the code, the functions debugfs_create_file() and
> > debugfs_create_file_unsafe(), both internally call __debugfs_create_file().
> > However, they pass debugfs_full_proxy_file_operations and
> > debugfs_open_proxy_file_operations respectively to it. The former represents the
> > full proxy factory, where as the later one is lightweight open proxy
> > implementation of the file operations structure.
> >
> > >
> > > This commit message is not explaining why the unsafe is the suggested
> > > or who suggested it.
> >
> > If you find the response above accurate, I will include these details about
> > the _unsafe() function in my commit message in v2.
> >
> > >
> > > If you remove the unsafe part feel free to resend adding:
> >
> > Please confirm you still believe switching to _unsafe() is not necessary.
>
> Based on the coccinelle commit it looks like you are right, but cocinelle
> just failed to detect the case. Let's see what Nicolai and Julia respond
> before we move with any patch here.

Hello Nicolai and Julia,
Can you please review this proposed patch and the feedback comments from Rodrigo
please?

Thank you,
./drv

>
> >
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > (to both patches, this and the drrs one.
> > >
> > > Also, it looks like you could contribute with other 2 patches:
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/pxp/intel_pxp_debugfs.c:64:0-23: WARNING: pxp_terminate_fops should be defined with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c:150:0-23: WARNING: vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops should be defined with DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE
> >
> > Yes, these are on my list. Was waiting for a feedback on the first submission
> > before I send more similar patches.
> >
> > Appreciate your time and the feedback.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > ./drv
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c
> > > > index b5ee5ea0d010..4b481e2f908b 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_fbc.c
> > > > @@ -1809,10 +1809,10 @@ static int intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_set(void *data, u64 val)
> > > >  	return 0;
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_fops,
> > > > -			intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_get,
> > > > -			intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_set,
> > > > -			"%llu\n");
> > > > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_fops,
> > > > +			 intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_get,
> > > > +			 intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_set,
> > > > +			 "%llu\n");
> > > >
> > > >  static void intel_fbc_debugfs_add(struct intel_fbc *fbc,
> > > >  				  struct dentry *parent)
> > > > @@ -1821,8 +1821,8 @@ static void intel_fbc_debugfs_add(struct intel_fbc *fbc,
> > > >  			    fbc, &intel_fbc_debugfs_status_fops);
> > > >
> > > >  	if (fbc->funcs->set_false_color)
> > > > -		debugfs_create_file("i915_fbc_false_color", 0644, parent,
> > > > -				    fbc, &intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_fops);
> > > > +		debugfs_create_file_unsafe("i915_fbc_false_color", 0644, parent,
> > > > +					   fbc, &intel_fbc_debugfs_false_color_fops);
> > > >  }
> > > >
> > > >  void intel_fbc_crtc_debugfs_add(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.34.1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>