[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Prevent signals from interrupting close()

[Ben Widawsky]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 06:58:41PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 10:43:47AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 08:03:39AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > We neither report any unfinished operations during releasing GEM objects
> > > associated with the file, and even if we did, it is bad form to report
> > > -EINTR from a close().
> > > 
> > > The root cause of the bug that first showed itself during close is that
> > > we do not do proper live tracking of vma and contexts under full-ppgtt,
> > > but this is useful piece of defensive programming enforcing our
> > > userspace API contract.
> > > 
> > > Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c | 9 +++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > index 24dd55a16436..d67ca8051e07 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_dma.c
> > > @@ -1937,9 +1937,18 @@ void i915_driver_lastclose(struct drm_device * dev)
> > >  
> > >  void i915_driver_preclose(struct drm_device * dev, struct drm_file *file_priv)
> > >  {
> > > +	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > > +	bool was_interruptible;
> > > +
> > >  	mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > > +	was_interruptible = dev_priv->mm.interruptible;
> > > +	WARN_ON(!was_interruptible);
> > > +	dev_priv->mm.interruptible = false;
> > > +
> > >  	i915_gem_context_close(dev, file_priv);
> > >  	i915_gem_release(dev, file_priv);
> > > +
> > > +	dev_priv->mm.interruptible = was_interruptible;
> > >  	mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > 
> > I guess you missed:
> > 1396905423-19453-1-git-send-email-benjamin.widawsky at intel.com
> 
> Oops, I did.
>  
> > True in my case, I should have put the read of
> > 'dev_priv->mm.interruptible' within the lock.
> > 
> > I don't think we need to protect gem_release.
> 
> My argument is that I want to protect the entire preclose() as it cannot
> be allowed to fail, i.e. all future bugs.
> -Chris
> 

Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net>

(I haven't actually tested this patch, but it's similar enough to my
patch that I think it could probably get a Tested-by too)

-- 
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center