[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 09/35] drm/gem: support BO freeing without dev->struct_mutex

[Chris Wilson]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 10:10:14PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 08:47:32PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:29:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Finally all the core gem and a lot of drivers are entirely free of
> > > dev->struct_mutex depencies, and we can start to have an entirely
> > > lockless unref path.
> > > 
> > > To make sure that no one who touches the core code accidentally breaks
> > > existing drivers which still require dev->struct_mutex I've made the
> > > might_lock check unconditional.
> > > 
> > > While at it de-inline the ref/unref functions, they've become a bit
> > > too big.
> > > 
> > > v2: Make it not leak like a sieve.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > >  include/drm/drmP.h        | 12 ++++++++-
> > >  include/drm/drm_gem.h     | 45 ++-------------------------------
> > >  3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c
> > > index 25dac31eef37..8f2eff448bb5 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem.c
> > > @@ -788,16 +788,7 @@ drm_gem_object_release(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> > >  }
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_object_release);
> > >  
> > > -/**
> > > - * drm_gem_object_free - free a GEM object
> > > - * @kref: kref of the object to free
> > > - *
> > > - * Called after the last reference to the object has been lost.
> > > - * Must be called holding struct_ mutex
> > > - *
> > > - * Frees the object
> > > - */
> > > -void
> > > +static void
> > >  drm_gem_object_free(struct kref *kref)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct drm_gem_object *obj =
> > > @@ -806,10 +797,59 @@ drm_gem_object_free(struct kref *kref)
> > >  
> > >  	WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev->struct_mutex));
> > >  
> > > -	if (dev->driver->gem_free_object != NULL)
> > > +	if (dev->driver->gem_free_object_unlocked != NULL)
> > > +		dev->driver->gem_free_object_unlocked(obj);
> > > +	else if (dev->driver->gem_free_object != NULL)
> > >  		dev->driver->gem_free_object(obj);
> > >  }
> > > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_object_free);
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked - release a GEM BO reference
> > > + * @obj: GEM buffer object
> > > + *
> > > + * This releases a reference to @obj. Callers must not hold the
> > > + * dev->struct_mutex lock when calling this function.
> > > + */
> > > +void
> > > +drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> > > +{
> > 
> > I have i915.ko in a state where we could use this as well. I would like
> > to have our inlines back though. I would add
> > 
> > static inline void
> > i915_gem_object_put(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > {
> > 	kref_put(&obj->base.refcount, drm_gem_object_free);
> > }
> > 
> > Hmm, considering how simple that is, maybe I won't ask for
> > 
> > static inline void
> > __drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> > {
> > 	BUG_ON(obj->dev->driver->gem_free_object == NULL);
> > 	kref_put(&obj->refcount, drm_gem_object_free);
> > }
> 
> Yeah, something like that makes sense. Imo the core versions really need
> all the silly locking checks and all that to make sure no one abuses them
> by accident, or breaks a driver still using struct_mutex. Adding a
> fastpath for drivers using gem_free_object_unlocked just wrapping the
> kref_put certainly looks like a good idea.
> 
> And if we document the exact use case I think we could even nuke the
> BUG_ON too. This can be audited with a simple
> 
> $ git grep __drm_gem_object_unreference_unlocked -- drivers/gpu/drm/$driver
> 
> so imo nothing too dangerous.
> 
> Ack/r-b on the patch itself?

Only an ack, I'm afraid. I haven't considered the ramifictions to know
if the intermediate steps are going to be painful (in some cases we'll
have an all a new hot function in our profiles, but overall there'll be
little change I hope). The end goal is definitely an improvement.

I've talked myself into having a better read of the core patches...
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre