[PATCH 8/8] dma-buf: nuke reservation_object seq number

[Christian König]

Am 06.08.19 um 21:57 schrieb Chris Wilson:
> Quoting Christian König (2019-08-06 16:01:34)
>> The only remaining use for this is to protect against setting a new exclusive
>> fence while we grab both exclusive and shared. That can also be archived by
>> looking if the exclusive fence has changed or not after completing the
>> operation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 20 +++-----------------
>>   include/linux/reservation.h   |  9 ++-------
>>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
>> index 839d72af7ad8..43549a4d6658 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
>> @@ -49,12 +49,6 @@
>>   DEFINE_WD_CLASS(reservation_ww_class);
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(reservation_ww_class);
>>   
>> -struct lock_class_key reservation_seqcount_class;
>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(reservation_seqcount_class);
>> -
>> -const char reservation_seqcount_string[] = "reservation_seqcount";
>> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(reservation_seqcount_string);
>> -
>>   /**
>>    * reservation_object_list_alloc - allocate fence list
>>    * @shared_max: number of fences we need space for
>> @@ -103,9 +97,6 @@ static void reservation_object_list_free(struct reservation_object_list *list)
>>   void reservation_object_init(struct reservation_object *obj)
>>   {
>>          ww_mutex_init(&obj->lock, &reservation_ww_class);
>> -
>> -       __seqcount_init(&obj->seq, reservation_seqcount_string,
>> -                       &reservation_seqcount_class);
>>          RCU_INIT_POINTER(obj->fence, NULL);
>>          RCU_INIT_POINTER(obj->fence_excl, NULL);
>>   }
>> @@ -282,12 +273,10 @@ void reservation_object_add_excl_fence(struct reservation_object *obj,
>>                  dma_fence_get(fence);
>>   
>>          preempt_disable();
>> -       write_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq);
>> -       /* write_seqcount_begin provides the necessary memory barrier */
>>          RCU_INIT_POINTER(obj->fence_excl, fence);
> I think, now has to be rcu_assign_pointer.
>
>   * Initialize an RCU-protected pointer in special cases where readers
>   * do not need ordering constraints on the CPU or the compiler.  These
>   * special cases are:
>   *
>   * 1.   This use of RCU_INIT_POINTER() is NULLing out the pointer *or*
>   * 2.   The caller has taken whatever steps are required to prevent
>   *      RCU readers from concurrently accessing this pointer *or*
>   * 3.   The referenced data structure has already been exposed to
>   *      readers either at compile time or via rcu_assign_pointer() *and*
>   *
>   *      a.      You have not made *any* reader-visible changes to
>   *              this structure since then *or*
>   *      b.      It is OK for readers accessing this structure from its
>   *              new location to see the old state of the structure.  (For
>   *              example, the changes were to statistical counters or to
>   *              other state where exact synchronization is not required.)
>
> We used to apply 2 from the seqcount, and 3 does not apply here.
>
>> +       /* pointer update must be visible before we modify the shared_count */
>>          if (old)
>> -               old->shared_count = 0;
>> -       write_seqcount_end(&obj->seq);
>> +               smp_store_mb(old->shared_count, 0);
> Hmm. Ok, I think.
>
>>   {
>> -       unsigned int seq;
>> -
>>          do {
>> -               seq = read_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq);
>>                  *excl = rcu_dereference(obj->fence_excl);
>>                  *list = rcu_dereference(obj->fence);
>> -       } while (read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, seq));
>> +               smp_rmb(); /* See reservation_object_add_excl_fence */
>> +       } while (rcu_access_pointer(obj->fence_excl) != *excl);
>>   }
> So, if we are add_excl_fence and cancelling a shared-list, before we
> return we guarantee that the shared-list is set to zero if excl is set
> as we read.
>
> If we add to shared-list during the read, ... Hmm, actually we should
> return num_list, i.e.
>
> do {
> 	*list = rcu_dereference(obj->fence);
> 	num_list = *list ? (*list)->count : 0;
> 	smp_rmb();
> } while (...)
>
> return num_list.
>
> as the relationship between the count and the fence entries is also
> determined by the mb in add_shared_fence.

I've read that multiple times now, but can't follow. Why should we do this?

The only important thing is that the readers see the new fence before 
the increment of the number of fences.

When you see this is rather irrelevant.

Christian.

>
> Oops, that was an oversight in the previous review.
>
>>          preempt_enable();
>>   
>>          /* inplace update, no shared fences */
>> @@ -370,11 +359,8 @@ int reservation_object_copy_fences(struct reservation_object *dst,
>>          old = reservation_object_get_excl(dst);
>>   
>>          preempt_disable();
>> -       write_seqcount_begin(&dst->seq);
>> -       /* write_seqcount_begin provides the necessary memory barrier */
>>          RCU_INIT_POINTER(dst->fence_excl, new);
> rcu_assign_pointer again I believe.
> -Chris