[PATCH 2/2] drm/scheduler: Remove obsolete spinlock.

[Lucas Stach]

Am Mittwoch, den 16.05.2018, 15:10 +0200 schrieb Christian König:
> Am 16.05.2018 um 15:00 schrieb Lucas Stach:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 16.05.2018, 14:32 +0200 schrieb Christian König:
> > > Am 16.05.2018 um 14:28 schrieb Lucas Stach:
> > > > Am Mittwoch, den 16.05.2018, 14:08 +0200 schrieb Christian König:
> > > > > Yes, exactly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > For normal user space command submission we should have tons of
> > > > > locks
> > > > > guaranteeing that (e.g. just the VM lock should do).
> > > > > 
> > > > > For kernel moves we have the mutex for the GTT windows which
> > > > > protects
> > > > > it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The could be problems with the UVD/VCE queues to cleanup the
> > > > > handles
> > > > > when an application crashes.
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW, etnaviv is currently completely unlocked in this path, but I
> > > > believe that this isn't an issue as the sched fence seq numbers are
> > > > per
> > > > entity. So to actually end up with reversed seqnos one context has
> > > > to
> > > > preempt itself to do another submit, while the current one hasn't
> > > > returned from kernel space, which I believe is a fairly theoretical
> > > > issue. Is my understanding correct?
> > > 
> > > Yes. The problem is with the right timing this can be used to access
> > > freed up memory.
> > > 
> > > If you then manage to place a page table in that freed up memory
> > > taking
> > > over the system is just a typing exercise.
> > 
> > Thanks. I believe we don't have this problem in etnaviv, as memory
> > referencing is tied to the job and will only be unreferenced on
> > free_job, but I'll re-check this when I've got some time.
> 
> Well that depends on how you use the sequence numbers.
> 
> If you use them for job completion check somewhere then you certainly 
> have a problem if job A gets the 1 and B the 2, but B completes before A.

We don't do this anymore. All the etnaviv internals are driven by the
fence signal callbacks.

> At bare minimum that's still a bug we need to fix because it confuses 
> functions like dma_fence_is_later() and dma_fence_later().

Agreed. Also amending the documentation to state that
drm_sched_job_init() and drm_sched_entity_push_job() need to be called
under a common lock seems like a good idea.

Regards,
Lucas