Am 03.07.2018 um 14:52 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:46:44PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 25.06.2018 um 11:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:22:31AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 04:11:01PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
First step towards unpinned DMA buf operation.
I've checked the DRM drivers to potential locking of the reservation
object, but essentially we need to audit all implementations of the
dma_buf _ops for this to work.
v2: reordered
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch>
Ok I did review drivers a bit, but apparently not well enough by far. i915
CI is unhappy:
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_9400/fi-whl-u/igt@gem_mmap_...@basic-small-bo-tiledx.html
So yeah inserting that lock in there isn't the most trivial thing :-/
I kinda assume that other drivers will have similar issues, e.g. omapdrm's
use of dev->struct_mutex also very much looks like it'll result in a new
locking inversion.
Ah, crap. Already feared that this wouldn't be easy, but yeah that it is as
bad as this is rather disappointing.
Thanks for the info, going to keep thinking about how to solve those issues.
Side note: We want to make sure that drivers don't get the reservation_obj
locking hierarchy wrong in other places (using dev->struct_mutex is kinda
a pre-existing mis-use that we can't wish away retroactively
unfortunately). One really important thing is that shrinker vs resv_obj
must work with trylocks in the shrinker, so that you can allocate memory
while holding reservation objects.
One neat trick to teach lockdep about this would be to have a dummy
if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING)) {
ww_mutex_lock(dma_buf->resv_obj);
fs_reclaim_acquire(GFP_KERNEL);
fs_reclaim_release(GFP_KERNEL);
ww_mutex_unlock(dma_buf->resv_obj);
}
in dma_buf_init(). We're using the fs_reclaim_acquire/release check very
successfully to improve our igt test coverage for i915.ko in other areas.
Totally unrelated to dev->struct_mutex, but thoughts? Well for
dev->struct_mutex we could at least decide on one true way to nest
resv_obj vs. dev->struct_mutex as maybe an interim step, but not sure how
much that would help.
I don't think that would help. As far as I can see we only have two choices:
1. Either have a big patch which fixes all DMA-buf implementations to
allow the reservation lock to be held during map/unmap (unrealistic).
2. Add a flag to at least in the mid term tell the DMA-buf helper
functions what to do. E.g. create the mapping without the reservation
lock held.
How about moving the SGL caching from the DRM layer into the DMA-buf
layer and add a flag if the exporter wants/needs this caching?
Then only the implementations which can deal with dynamic invalidation
disable SGL caching and with it enable creating the sgl with the
reservation object locked.
This way we can kill two birds with one stone by both avoiding the SGL
caching in the DRM layer as well as having a sane handling for the locking.
Thoughts?
Christian.
-Daniel
