[PATCH 2/9] drm/syncobj: Lock around drm_syncobj::fence

[Jason Ekstrand]

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
wrote:

> Quoting Jason Ekstrand (2017-08-08 23:46:02)
> > The atomic exchange operation we were doing before in replace_fence was
> > sufficient for the case where it raced with itself.  However, if you
> > have a race between a replace_fence and dma_fence_get(syncobj->fence),
> > you may end up with the entire replace_fence happening between the point
> > in time where the one thread gets the syncobj->fence pointer and when it
> > calls dma_fence_get() on it.  If this happens, then the reference may be
> > dropped before we get a chance to get a new one.
>
> This doesn't require a spinlock, just dma_fence_get_rcu_safe(). The
> argument for keeping this patch lies in the merit of later patches..
>

Doesn't that also require that we start using an RCU for syncobj?  That was
my interpretation of the hieroglyphics above the definition of
get_rcu_safe()
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20170809/ba726675/attachment.html>