[Intel-gfx] [Nouveau] [PATCH 9/9] drm: Turn off crtc before tearing down its data structure

[Daniel Vetter]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 09:30:06AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 04:40:12PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:36:41PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 03:43:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Lukas Wunner <lukas at wunner.de> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:30:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 06:03:27PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> > > > > > > When a drm_crtc structure is destroyed with drm_crtc_cleanup(), the DRM
> > > > > > > core does not turn off the crtc first and neither do the drivers. With
> > > > > > > nouveau, radeon and amdgpu, this causes a runtime pm ref to be leaked on
> > > > > > > driver unload if at least one crtc was enabled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (See usage of have_disp_power_ref in nouveau_crtc_set_config(),
> > > > > > > radeon_crtc_set_config() and amdgpu_crtc_set_config()).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fixes: 5addcf0a5f0f ("nouveau: add runtime PM support (v0.9)")
> > > > > > > Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied at redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Tested-by: Karol Herbst <nouveau at karolherbst.de>
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Wunner <lukas at wunner.de>
> > > > 
> > > > With legacy kms the only way to keep a crtc enabled is to display a
> > > > drm_framebuffer on it. And drm_mode_config_cleanup has a WARN_ON if
> > > > framebuffers are left behind. There's a bunch of options:
> > > > - nouveau somehow manages to keep the crtc on without a framebuffer
> > > > - nouveau somehow leaks a drm_framebuffer, but removes it from the fb_list
> > > > - something else
> > > 
> > > Found it. nouveau_fbcon_destroy() doesn't call drm_framebuffer_remove().
> > > If I add that, the crtc gets properly disabled on unload.
> > > 
> > > It does call drm_framebuffer_cleanup(). That's why there was no WARN,
> > > drm_mode_config_cleanup() only WARNs if a framebuffer was left on the
> > > mode_config.fb_list.
> > > 
> > > radeon and amdgpu have the same problem. In fact there are very few
> > > drivers that call drm_framebuffer_remove(): tegra, msm, exynos, omapdrm
> > > and i915 (since Imre Deak's 9d6612516da0).
> > > 
> > > Should we add a WARN to prevent this? How about WARN_ON(crtc->enabled)
> > > in drm_crtc_cleanup()?
> > > 
> > > Also, i915 calls drm_framebuffer_unregister_private() before it calls
> > > drm_framebuffer_remove(). This ordering has the unfortunate side effect
> > > that the drm_framebuffer has ID 0 in log messages emitted by
> > > drm_framebuffer_remove():
> > > 
> > > [   39.680874] [drm:drm_mode_object_unreference] OBJ ID: 0 (3)
> > > [   39.680878] [drm:drm_mode_object_unreference] OBJ ID: 0 (2)
> > > [   39.680884] [drm:drm_mode_object_unreference] OBJ ID: 0 (1)
> > 
> > Well we must first unregister it before we can remove it, so this is
> > unavoidable.
> 
> Yes but drm_framebuffer_free() calls drm_mode_object_unregister()
> and is invoked by drm_framebuffer_remove(), so the additional call to
> drm_framebuffer_unregister_private() in intel_fbdev_destroy() seems
> superfluous. Or is there some reason I'm missing that this needs to
> be called before intel_unpin_fb_obj()?
> 
> 
> > Wrt switching from _cleanup to _remove, iirc there was troubles with the
> > later calling into the fb->funcs->destroy hook. But many drivers have
> > their fbdev fb embedded into some struct (instead of a pointer like i915),
> > and then things go sideways badly. That's why you can't just blindly
> > replace them.
> 
> So the options seem to be:
> 
> (1) Refactor nouveau, radeon and amdgpu to not embed their framebuffer
>     struct in their fbdev struct, so that drm_framebuffer_remove() can
>     be used.
> 
> (2) Amend each of them to turn off crtcs which are using the fbdev
>     framebuffer, duplicating the code in drm_framebuffer_remove().
> 
> (3) Split drm_framebuffer_remove(), move the portion to turn off crtcs
>     into a separate helper, say, drm_framebuffer_deactivate(), call that
>     from nouveau, radeon and amdgpu.
> 
> (4) Go back to square one and use patch [9/9] of this series.
> 
> Which one would be most preferred? Is there another solution I've missed?

I think a dedicated turn_off_everything helper would be best. We'd need an
atomic and a legacy version (because hooray), but that would work in all
cases. Relying on the implicit behaviour to turn off everything (strictly
speaking you only need to turn off all the planes, you can leave crtcs on,
and that's what most atomic drivers want really under normal
circumstances) is a bit fragile, and it's also possible to disable fbdev
emulation. If you driver needs everything to be off in module unload, then
it's imo best to explicitly enforce that.

So "(5) Write dedicated helper to turn off everything" is imo the right
fix.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch