[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 6/6] drm/shmem-helper: Switch to reservation lock

[Boris Brezillon]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:40:14 +0200
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at collabora.com> wrote:

> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 01:39:35 +0300
> Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko at collabora.com> wrote:
> 
> > Replace all drm-shmem locks with a GEM reservation lock. This makes locks
> > consistent with dma-buf locking convention where importers are responsible
> > for holding reservation lock for all operations performed over dma-bufs,
> > preventing deadlock between dma-buf importers and exporters.  
> 
> I've rebased some of my work on drm-misc-next this morning and noticed
> that the drm_gem_shmem_get_pages() I was using to pin pages no longer
> exists, so I ended looking at this patch to check what I should use
> instead, and I have a few questions/comments.
> 
> > 
> > Suggested-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>
> > Acked-by: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de>
> > Reviewed-by: Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko at collabora.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c        | 210 ++++++++----------
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/lima/lima_gem.c               |   8 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_drv.c       |   7 +-
> >  .../gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_gem_shrinker.c  |   6 +-
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_mmu.c       |  19 +-
> >  include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h            |  14 +-
> >  6 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 148 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > index 4ea6507a77e5..a783d2245599 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> > @@ -88,8 +88,6 @@ __drm_gem_shmem_create(struct drm_device *dev, size_t size, bool private)
> >  	if (ret)
> >  		goto err_release;
> >  
> > -	mutex_init(&shmem->pages_lock);
> > -	mutex_init(&shmem->vmap_lock);
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&shmem->madv_list);
> >  
> >  	if (!private) {
> > @@ -141,11 +139,13 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_free(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_gem_object *obj = &shmem->base;
> >  
> > -	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, shmem->vmap_use_count);
> > -
> >  	if (obj->import_attach) {
> >  		drm_prime_gem_destroy(obj, shmem->sgt);
> >  	} else {
> > +		dma_resv_lock(shmem->base.resv, NULL);
> > +
> > +		drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, shmem->vmap_use_count);
> > +
> >  		if (shmem->sgt) {
> >  			dma_unmap_sgtable(obj->dev->dev, shmem->sgt,
> >  					  DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL, 0);
> > @@ -154,22 +154,24 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_free(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >  		}
> >  		if (shmem->pages)
> >  			drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(shmem);
> > -	}
> >  
> > -	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, shmem->pages_use_count);
> > +		drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, shmem->pages_use_count);
> > +
> > +		dma_resv_unlock(shmem->base.resv);
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	drm_gem_object_release(obj);
> > -	mutex_destroy(&shmem->pages_lock);
> > -	mutex_destroy(&shmem->vmap_lock);
> >  	kfree(shmem);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_gem_shmem_free);
> >  
> > -static int drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> > +static int drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)  
> 
> I find this name change confusing, because the function requires the
> GEM resv lock to be held, and the _locked suffix was making it pretty
> clear.
> 
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_gem_object *obj = &shmem->base;
> >  	struct page **pages;
> >  
> > +	dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);
> > +
> >  	if (shmem->pages_use_count++ > 0)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > @@ -197,35 +199,16 @@ static int drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > - * drm_gem_shmem_get_pages - Allocate backing pages for a shmem GEM object
> > + * drm_gem_shmem_put_pages - Decrease use count on the backing pages for a shmem GEM object
> >   * @shmem: shmem GEM object
> >   *
> > - * This function makes sure that backing pages exists for the shmem GEM object
> > - * and increases the use count.
> > - *
> > - * Returns:
> > - * 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
> > + * This function decreases the use count and puts the backing pages when use drops to zero.
> >   */
> > -int drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> > +void drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)  
> 
> Same comment about the name change. That's even more confusing since
> this function was previously taking care of the locking. Also not sure
> why you'd want to expose this _put() helper when the _get() helper is
> private.
> 
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_gem_object *obj = &shmem->base;
> > -	int ret;
> >  
> > -	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, obj->import_attach);
> > -
> > -	ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&shmem->pages_lock);
> > -	if (ret)
> > -		return ret;
> > -	ret = drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_locked(shmem);
> > -	mutex_unlock(&shmem->pages_lock);
> > -
> > -	return ret;
> > -}
> > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_get_pages);
> > -
> > -static void drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> > -{
> > -	struct drm_gem_object *obj = &shmem->base;
> > +	dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);
> >  
> >  	if (drm_WARN_ON_ONCE(obj->dev, !shmem->pages_use_count))
> >  		return;
> > @@ -243,20 +226,25 @@ static void drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >  			  shmem->pages_mark_accessed_on_put);
> >  	shmem->pages = NULL;
> >  }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_put_pages);
> >  
> > -/*
> > - * drm_gem_shmem_put_pages - Decrease use count on the backing pages for a shmem GEM object
> > - * @shmem: shmem GEM object
> > - *
> > - * This function decreases the use count and puts the backing pages when use drops to zero.
> > - */
> > -void drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> > +static int drm_gem_shmem_pin_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >  {
> > -	mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock);
> > -	drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked(shmem);
> > -	mutex_unlock(&shmem->pages_lock);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);
> > +
> > +	ret = drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(shmem);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> > +{
> > +	dma_resv_assert_held(shmem->base.resv);
> > +
> > +	drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(shmem);
> >  }
> > -EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_put_pages);
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * drm_gem_shmem_pin - Pin backing pages for a shmem GEM object
> > @@ -271,10 +259,17 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_put_pages);
> >  int drm_gem_shmem_pin(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_gem_object *obj = &shmem->base;
> > +	int ret;
> >  
> >  	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, obj->import_attach);
> >  
> > -	return drm_gem_shmem_get_pages(shmem);
> > +	ret = dma_resv_lock_interruptible(shmem->base.resv, NULL);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;  
> 
> I think here is the major problem I have with this patch: you've made
> drm_gem_shmem_{get_pages,pin}() private, which forces me to call
> drm_gem_shmem_pin() in a path where I already acquired the resv lock
> (using the drm_exec infra proposed by Christian). That would
> probably work if you were letting ret == -EALREADY go through, but I'm
> wondering if it wouldn't be preferable to expose
> drm_gem_shmem_pin_locked().
> 
> > +	ret = drm_gem_shmem_pin_locked(shmem);
> > +	dma_resv_unlock(shmem->base.resv);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_pin);
> >  
> > @@ -291,12 +286,29 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_unpin(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem)
> >  
> >  	drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, obj->import_attach);
> >  
> > -	drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(shmem);
> > +	dma_resv_lock(shmem->base.resv, NULL);
> > +	drm_gem_shmem_unpin_locked(shmem);
> > +	dma_resv_unlock(shmem->base.resv);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_unpin);  
> 
> If we want to be consistent, let's just expose drm_gem_shmem_unpin()
> and drm_gem_shmem_pin() and keep drm_gem_shmem_{get,put}_pages()
> private, or even better, rename them drm_gem_shmem_{pin,unpin}_locked()
> insert of having drm_gem_shmem_{pin,unpin}_locked() wrappers that just
> forward the call to drm_gem_shmem_{get,put}_pages().
> 
> >  
> > -static int drm_gem_shmem_vmap_locked(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem,
> > -				     struct iosys_map *map)
> > +/*
> > + * drm_gem_shmem_vmap - Create a virtual mapping for a shmem GEM object
> > + * @shmem: shmem GEM object
> > + * @map: Returns the kernel virtual address of the SHMEM GEM object's backing
> > + *       store.
> > + *
> > + * This function makes sure that a contiguous kernel virtual address mapping
> > + * exists for the buffer backing the shmem GEM object. It hides the differences
> > + * between dma-buf imported and natively allocated objects.
> > + *
> > + * Acquired mappings should be cleaned up by calling drm_gem_shmem_vunmap().
> > + *
> > + * Returns:
> > + * 0 on success or a negative error code on failure.
> > + */
> > +int drm_gem_shmem_vmap(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem,
> > +		       struct iosys_map *map)  
> 
> Same problem with this renaming: it's confusing because this function
> was previously taking care of the locking, and it's no longer the case.
> That's actually true for other public functions your patching, but I
> won't go over all of them.

vmap() is less of a problem, because we're not supposed to call
drm_gem_shmem_vmap() directly, but rather go through drm_gem_vmap().
This should probably be clarified in the doc though, with this sort of
disclaimer: "don't use this function to map stuff, only use it to
implement drm_gem_object_funcs::vmap()."

Also noticed that the drm_gem API has the _locked pattern reversed,
with a few drm_gem_xxx_unlocked() helper that take the lock and call
the drm_gem_xxx() function. Don't have a strong opinion on whether this
is better than the xxx_locked() and xxx() pattern or not, but the fact
things are inconsistent across the API (drm_gem_pin() is letting the
backend take the lock before pinning pages, when drm_gem_vmap() is
not) is super confusing.