Em Sat, 28 Jul 2018 20:13:05 +0100
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> Hi Laurent, Mauro,
>
> I've cast my eyes through this, and the driver code it affects
>
> On 27/07/18 18:19, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > The VSP uses a lock to protect the BRU and BRS assignment when
> > configuring pipelines. The lock is taken in vsp1_du_atomic_begin() and
> > released in vsp1_du_atomic_flush(), as well as taken and released in
> > vsp1_du_setup_lif(). This guards against multiple pipelines trying to
> > assign the same BRU and BRS at the same time.
> >
> > The DRM framework calls the .atomic_begin() operations in a loop over
> > all CRTCs included in an atomic commit. On a VSPDL (the only VSP type
> > where this matters), a single VSP instance handles two CRTCs, with a
> > single lock. This results in a deadlock when the .atomic_begin()
> > operation is called on the second CRTC.
> >
> > The DRM framework serializes atomic commits that affect the same CRTCs,
> > but doesn't know about two CRTCs sharing the same VSPDL. Two commits
> > affecting the VSPDL LIF0 and LIF1 respectively can thus race each other,
> > hence the need for a lock.
> >
> > This could be fixed on the DRM side by forcing serialization of commits
> > affecting CRTCs backed by the same VSPDL, but that would negatively
> > affect performances, as the locking is only needed when the BRU and BRS
> > need to be reassigned, which is an uncommon case.
> >
> > The lock protects the whole .atomic_begin() to .atomic_flush() sequence.
> > The only operation that can occur in-between is vsp1_du_atomic_update(),
> > which doesn't touch the BRU and BRS, and thus doesn't need to be
> > protected by the lock. We can thus only take the lock around the
>
> And I almost replied to say ... but what about vsp1_du_atomic_update()
> before re-reading this paragraph :)
>
>
> > pipeline setup calls in vsp1_du_atomic_flush(), which fixes the
> > deadlock.
> >
> > Fixes: f81f9adc4ee1 ("media: v4l: vsp1: Assign BRU and BRS to pipelines dynamically")
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It makes me very happy to see the lock/unlock across separate functions
> removed :)
>
> Reviewed-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> > ---
> > drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_drm.c | 4 +---
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > I've successfully tested the patch with kmstest --flip running with four
> > outputs on a Salvator-XS board, as well as with the DU kms-test-brxalloc.py
> > test. The deadlock is gone, and no race has been observed.
> >
> > Mauro, this is a v4.18 regression fix. I'm sorry for sending it so late,
> > I haven't noticed the issue earlier. Once Kieran reviews it (which should
> > happen in the next few days), could you send it to Linus ? The breakage is
> > pretty bad otherwise for people using both the VGA and LVDS outputs at the
> > same time.
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_drm.c b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_drm.c
> > index edb35a5c57ea..a99fc0ced7a7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_drm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/vsp1/vsp1_drm.c
> > @@ -728,9 +728,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsp1_du_setup_lif);
> > */
> > void vsp1_du_atomic_begin(struct device *dev, unsigned int pipe_index)
> > {
> > - struct vsp1_device *vsp1 = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > -
> > - mutex_lock(&vsp1->drm->lock);
> > }
As this is a regression fix, I'll apply it.
However, this function now does nothing. Please remove it on a next
Kernel version, if it is not needed anymore (or add whatever it is
needed to replace the lock).
Regards,
Mauro
Thanks,
Mauro
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
