Re: [PATCH] drm: fix deadlock of syncobj v5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 2018年10月23日 17:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Chunming Zhou (2018-10-23 08:57:54)
v2:
add a mutex between sync_cb execution and free.
v3:
clearly separating the roles for pt_lock and cb_mutex (Chris)
v4:
the cb_mutex should be taken outside of the pt_lock around this if() block. (Chris)
v5:
fix a corner case

Tested by syncobj_basic and syncobj_wait of igt.

Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
  include/drm/drm_syncobj.h     |  8 +++--
  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
index 57bf6006394d..679a56791e34 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
@@ -125,23 +125,26 @@ static int drm_syncobj_fence_get_or_add_callback(struct drm_syncobj *syncobj,
         if (!ret)
                 return 1;
- spin_lock(&syncobj->lock);
+       mutex_lock(&syncobj->cb_mutex);
         /* We've already tried once to get a fence and failed.  Now that we
          * have the lock, try one more time just to be sure we don't add a
          * callback when a fence has already been set.
          */
+       spin_lock(&syncobj->pt_lock);
         if (!list_empty(&syncobj->signal_pt_list)) {
-               spin_unlock(&syncobj->lock);
+               spin_unlock(&syncobj->pt_lock);
                 drm_syncobj_search_fence(syncobj, 0, 0, fence);
Hmm, just thinking of other ways of tidying this up

mutex_lock(cb_lock);
spin_lock(pt_lock);
*fence = drm_syncobj_find_signal_pt_for_point();
spin_unlock(pt_list);
if (*!fence)
	drm_syncobj_add_callback_locked(syncobj, cb, func);
mutex_unlock(cb_lock);

i.e. get rid of the early return and we can even drop the int return here
as it is unimportant and unused.
Yes, do you need I send v6? or you make a separate patch as a improvment?

Thanks,
David Zhou
-Chris

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel




[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux