[PATCH 2/2] drm/xe/oa: Fix locking for stream->pollin
Dixit, Ashutosh
ashutosh.dixit at intel.com
Wed Jan 22 04:04:52 UTC 2025
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 15:19:03 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>
Hi Rodrigo,
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:03:54AM -0800, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
> > Previously locking was not implemented for stream->pollin. Now
> > stream->pollin should be accessed under stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock.
>
> This commit message fails to explain why. Why it was not needed
> before and why it is needed now?
I've sent a v2 and explained this in the v2 commit message.
> Also, please make sure that the lock really makes sense and
> we are not just increasing the scope of a locking that was
> designed for something else...
It is increasing the scope of a previous lock, but to me it looks ok after
the change introduced in Patch 1 of this series. IMO it is better to
increase the scope of one previous lock rather then introduce yet another
lock. I have also updated the comment for the lock to reflect this change
in v2.
> and that the locking guidelines are followed... [1]
>
> [1] - https://blog.ffwll.ch/2022/07/locking-engineering.html
Locking guidelines are followed, it is just a spinlock protecting
concurrent data modification. I've also checked there are no ABBA lock
inversion issues: when multiple locks are taken they are always taken by
taking stream->stream_lock first, followed by stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit at intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_oa.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_oa.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_oa.c
> > index fa873f3d0a9d1..9de62ce4b9e42 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_oa.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_oa.c
> > @@ -530,6 +530,7 @@ static ssize_t xe_oa_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> > size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
> > {
> > struct xe_oa_stream *stream = file->private_data;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > size_t offset = 0;
> > int ret;
> >
> > @@ -562,8 +563,10 @@ static ssize_t xe_oa_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> > * Also in case of -EIO, we have already waited for data before returning
> > * -EIO, so need to wait again
> > */
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock, flags);
> > if (ret != -ENOSPC && ret != -EIO)
> > stream->pollin = false;
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock, flags);
> >
> > /* Possible values for ret are 0, -EFAULT, -ENOSPC, -EIO, -EINVAL, ... */
> > return offset ?: (ret ?: -EAGAIN);
> > @@ -573,6 +576,7 @@ static __poll_t xe_oa_poll_locked(struct xe_oa_stream *stream,
> > struct file *file, poll_table *wait)
> > {
> > __poll_t events = 0;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> >
> > poll_wait(file, &stream->poll_wq, wait);
> >
> > @@ -582,8 +586,10 @@ static __poll_t xe_oa_poll_locked(struct xe_oa_stream *stream,
> > * in use. We rely on hrtimer xe_oa_poll_check_timer_cb to notify us when there
> > * are samples to read
> > */
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock, flags);
> > if (stream->pollin)
> > events |= EPOLLIN;
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&stream->oa_buffer.ptr_lock, flags);
> >
> > return events;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.47.1
> >
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list