[PATCH v6 14/22] dma-buf: Introduce new locking convention

[Dmitry Osipenko]

On 6/29/22 00:26, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
> 
> On 5/30/22 15:57, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> On 5/30/22 16:41, Christian König wrote:
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>> Am 30.05.22 um 15:26 schrieb Dmitry Osipenko:
>>>> Hello Christian,
>>>>
>>>> On 5/30/22 09:50, Christian König wrote:
>>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all please separate out this patch from the rest of the
>>>>> series,
>>>>> since this is a complex separate structural change.
>>>> I assume all the patches will go via the DRM tree in the end since the
>>>> rest of the DRM patches in this series depend on this dma-buf change.
>>>> But I see that separation may ease reviewing of the dma-buf changes, so
>>>> let's try it.
>>> That sounds like you are underestimating a bit how much trouble this
>>> will be.
>>>
>>>>> I have tried this before and failed because catching all the locks in
>>>>> the right code paths are very tricky. So expect some fallout from this
>>>>> and make sure the kernel test robot and CI systems are clean.
>>>> Sure, I'll fix up all the reported things in the next iteration.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, have you ever posted yours version of the patch? Will be great if
>>>> we could compare the changed code paths.
>>> No, I never even finished creating it after realizing how much work it
>>> would be.
>>>
>>>>>> This patch introduces new locking convention for dma-buf users. From
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> on all dma-buf importers are responsible for holding dma-buf
>>>>>> reservation
>>>>>> lock around operations performed over dma-bufs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch implements the new dma-buf locking convention by:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      1. Making dma-buf API functions to take the reservation lock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      2. Adding new locked variants of the dma-buf API functions for
>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>>         that need to manage imported dma-bufs under the held lock.
>>>>> Instead of adding new locked variants please mark all variants which
>>>>> expect to be called without a lock with an _unlocked postfix.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should make it easier to remove those in a follow up patch set
>>>>> and
>>>>> then fully move the locking into the importer.
>>>> Do we really want to move all the locks to the importers? Seems the
>>>> majority of drivers should be happy with the dma-buf helpers handling
>>>> the locking for them.
>>> Yes, I clearly think so.
>>>
>>>>>>      3. Converting all drivers to the new locking scheme.
>>>>> I have strong doubts that you got all of them. At least radeon and
>>>>> nouveau should grab the reservation lock in their ->attach callbacks
>>>>> somehow.
>>>> Radeon and Nouveau use gem_prime_import_sg_table() and they take resv
>>>> lock already, seems they should be okay (?)
>>> You are looking at the wrong side. You need to fix the export code path,
>>> not the import ones.
>>>
>>> See for example attach on radeon works like this
>>> drm_gem_map_attach->drm_gem_pin->radeon_gem_prime_pin->radeon_bo_reserve->ttm_bo_reserve->dma_resv_lock.
>>>
>> Yeah, I was looking at the both sides, but missed this one.
> 
> Also i915 will run into trouble with attach. In particular since i915
> starts a full ww transaction in its attach callback to be able to lock
> other objects if migration is needed. I think i915 CI would catch this
> in a selftest.

Seems it indeed it should deadlock. But i915 selftests apparently
should've caught it and they didn't, I'll re-check what happened.

> Perhaps it's worthwile to take a step back and figure out, if the
> importer is required to lock, which callbacks might need a ww acquire
> context?

I'll take this into account, thanks.

> (And off-topic, Since we do a lot of fancy stuff under dma-resv locks
> including waiting for fences and other locks, IMO taking these locks
> uninterruptible should ring a warning bell)

I had the same thought and had a version that used the interruptible
locking variant, but then decided to fall back to the uninterruptible,
don't remember why. I'll revisit this.

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry