[PATCH 1/5] dma-buf: remove fallback for !CONFIG_DMA_SHARED_BUFFER
daniel at ffwll.ch
Wed Oct 3 01:53:16 PDT 2012
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom at vmware.com> wrote:
>>> So if I understand you correctly, the reservation changes in TTM are
>>> motivated by the
>>> fact that otherwise, in the generic reservation code, lockdep can only be
>>> annotated for a trylock and not a waiting lock, when it *is* in fact a
>>> waiting lock.
>>> I'm completely unfamiliar with setting up lockdep annotations, but the
>>> place a
>>> deadlock might occur is if the trylock fails and we do a
>>> Isn't it possible to annotate the call to wait_for_unreserve() just like
>>> interruptible waiting lock
>>> (that is always interrupted, but at least any deadlock will be catched?).
>> Hm, I have to admit that idea hasn't crossed my mind, but it's indeed
>> a hole in our current reservation lockdep annotations - since we're
>> blocking for the unreserve, other threads could potential block
>> waiting on us to release a lock we're holding already, resulting in a
>> Since no other locking primitive that I know of has this
>> wait_for_unlocked interface, I don't know how we could map this in
>> lockdep. One idea is to grab the lock and release it again immediately
>> (only in the annotations, not the real lock ofc). But I need to check
>> the lockdep code to see whether that doesn't trip it up.
> I imagine doing the same as mutex_lock_interruptible() does in the
> interrupted path should work...
It simply calls the unlock lockdep annotation function if it breaks
out. So doing a lock/unlock cycle in wait_unreserve should do what we
And to properly annotate the ttm reserve paths we could just add an
unconditional wait_unreserve call at the beginning like you suggested
(maybe with #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING in case ppl freak out about
the added atomic read in the uncontended case).
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
More information about the dri-devel