[PATCH 1/3] drm/ttm: fix ttm_bo_bulk_move_helper

[Christian König]

Am 06.09.2018 um 12:02 schrieb Huang Rui:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 05:17:33PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 31.08.2018 um 17:15 schrieb Michel Dänzer:
>>> On 2018-08-31 3:10 p.m., Christian König wrote:
>>>> Staring at the function for six hours, just to essentially move one line
>>>> of code.
>>> That sucks, but the commit log should describe what the problem was and
>>> how this patch solves it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>>>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>> index 35d53d81f486..138c98902033 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
>>>> @@ -250,15 +250,18 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_move_to_lru_tail);
>>>>   static void ttm_bo_bulk_move_helper(struct ttm_lru_bulk_move_pos *pos,
>>>>   				    struct list_head *lru, bool is_swap)
>>>>   {
>>>> +	struct list_head *list;
>>>>   	LIST_HEAD(entries);
>>>>   	LIST_HEAD(before);
>>>> -	struct list_head *list1, *list2;
>>>> -	list1 = is_swap ? &pos->last->swap : &pos->last->lru;
>>>> -	list2 = is_swap ? pos->first->swap.prev : pos->first->lru.prev;
>>>> +	reservation_object_assert_held(pos->last->resv);
>>>> +	list = is_swap ? &pos->last->swap : &pos->last->lru;
>>>> +	list_cut_position(&entries, lru, list);
>>>> +
>>>> +	reservation_object_assert_held(pos->first->resv);
>>>> +	list = is_swap ? pos->first->swap.prev : pos->first->lru.prev;
>>>> +	list_cut_position(&before, &entries, list);
>>> So the problem was that the first list_cut_position call could result in
>>> list2 pointing to la-la-land? Good catch!
>> Yes, exactly. Thought that would be obvious, but going to add that
>> to the commit log.
>>
>> Can I get a tested-by? You where much better at reproducing that than I'm.
>>
> Michel, Christian, thanks so much to take care of this when I was on
> vacation. And sorry to let you take a long time for finding the cause.
>
> Is that because I didn't hold the resveration before cut the list from
> position "first" and "last"?

Yes, that was one problem. Another was that the cutting code was buggy 
and determined one of the positions to cut at the wrong time.

>   May I know in which cases, we must hold the
> bo's reservation firstly?

BOs are reserved to prevent moving them. E.g. when the BO isn't reserved 
it can move around and so the LRU where you want to add/remove it could 
change.

Christian.

>
> Thanks,
> Ray
>
>