[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: compute wait_ioctl timeout correctly

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 01:46:27PM +0000, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 28/11/14 09:29, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > We've lost the +1 required for correct timeouts in
> > 
> > commit 5ed0bdf21a85d78e04f89f15ccf227562177cbd9
> > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>
> > Date:   Wed Jul 16 21:05:06 2014 +0000
> > 
> >     drm: i915: Use nsec based interfaces
> > 
> >     Use ktime_get_raw_ns() and get rid of the back and forth timespec
> >     conversions.
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>
> >     Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> >     Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org>
> > 
> > So fix this up by reinstating our handrolled _timeout function. While
> > at it bother with handling MAX_JIFFIES.
> > 
> > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82749
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>
> > Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz at linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 10 ++++++++++
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c |  3 ++-
> >  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > index 02b3cb32c8a6..caae337c0199 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -3030,6 +3030,16 @@ static inline unsigned long msecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const unsigned int m)
> >  	return min_t(unsigned long, MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET, j + 1);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline unsigned long nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(const u64 m)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long j = nsecs_to_jiffies(m);
> 
> nsecs_to_jiffies() may be (relatively) expensive (mul/div/etc), so I'd
> be inclined to move the call until after the test below. It would be
> nice if the test turned into a single comparison, since the RHS is a
> constant for a given kernel build; but it looks like jiffies_to_usecs()
> isn't expanded inline, since it's in time.c :-( In which case swapping
> the lines around may also help the compiler keep 'j' live.

This is only called in code that's about to sleep. Wasting a few cpu
cycles is totally ok ;-) This is also the pattern the non-_timeout
functions in time.c use, so I think we should be ok

> > +	if (m > (u64)jiffies_to_usecs(MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET) * 1000)
> 
> I think there's a problem with this line anyway. In kernel/time/time.c:
> 
> // Warning! Result type may be narrower than parameter type - DSG
> unsigned int jiffies_to_usecs(const unsigned long j)
> {
> #if HZ <= USEC_PER_SEC && !(USEC_PER_SEC % HZ)
>         return (USEC_PER_SEC / HZ) * j;
> #elif HZ > USEC_PER_SEC && !(HZ % USEC_PER_SEC)
>         return (j + (HZ / USEC_PER_SEC) - 1)/(HZ / USEC_PER_SEC);
> #else
> # if BITS_PER_LONG == 32
>         return (HZ_TO_USEC_MUL32 * j) >> HZ_TO_USEC_SHR32;
> # else
>         return (j * HZ_TO_USEC_NUM) / HZ_TO_USEC_DEN;
> # endif
> #endif
> }
> 
> Also, include/linux/jiffies.h:
> 
> #define MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET ((LONG_MAX >> 1)-1)
> 
> and include/linux/kernel.h:
> 
> #define LONG_MAX        ((long)(~0UL>>1))
> 
> So, on a 64-bit build we'll have LONG_MAX == 0x7fff_ffff_ffff_ffff and
> MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET == 0x3fff_ffff_ffff_fffe. Multiplying that by 1000
> gives an answer that doesn't fit in an unsigned int!

Oh blergh I've missed that jiffies is a long.

> Even on a 32-bit build (where LONG_MAX == 0x7fff_ffff and
> MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET == 0x3fff_fffe) MAX_JIFFY_OFFSET can't be multiplied by
> any typical value of HZ (50, 60, 1000) without overflow!

Cast operator binds tigther than *, so this case actually works.

> I think the only way to get this right, give the somewhat broken nature
> of the kernel function signatures and its lack of a u64 jiffies-to-nsecs
> function, is to convert ONE jiffy to (unsigned int) usecs,
> then widen to u64 before converting to nsecs and using that for the rest
> of the calculations.

I think this still overflows. I'm somewhat inclined to just tell userspace
to sod off for large timeout values since we really don't care about
those. But I'll see whether I can fix it up first without too much
trouble.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch