On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 05:50:05PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:34:46PM +0100, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> >
> >
> > Den 24.01.2019 18.57, skrev Daniel Vetter:
> > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:46 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:43:12AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 11:54:07AM +0100, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Den 22.01.2019 20.30, skrev Daniel Vetter:
> > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 8:07 PM Noralf Trønnes <noralf@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Den 22.01.2019 10.32, skrev Daniel Vetter:
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 01:21:46PM +0100, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Den 21.01.2019 10.55, skrev Daniel Vetter:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 10:10:14AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 12:43:08PM +0100, Noralf Trønnes wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> This adds resource managed (devres) versions of drm_dev_init() and
> > >>>>>>>>>>> drm_dev_register().
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Also added is devm_drm_dev_register_with_fbdev() which sets up generic
> > >>>>>>>>>>> fbdev emulation as well.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> devm_drm_dev_register() isn't exported since there are no users.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Noralf Trønnes <noralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> <snip>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> index 381581b01d48..12129772be45 100644
> > >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> > >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include <drm/drm_client.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include <drm/drm_drv.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +#include <drm/drm_fb_helper.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include <drm/drmP.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> #include "drm_crtc_internal.h"
> > >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -871,6 +872,111 @@ void drm_dev_unregister(struct drm_device *dev)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_dev_unregister);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +static void devm_drm_dev_init_release(void *data)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +{
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + drm_dev_put(data);
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> We need drm_dev_unplug() here, or this isn't safe.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> This function is only used to cover the error path if probe fails before
> > >>>>>>>> devm_drm_dev_register() is called. devm_drm_dev_register_release() is
> > >>>>>>>> the one that calls unplug. There are comments about this in the functions.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think I get a prize for being ignorant and blind :-/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +}
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +/**
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * devm_drm_dev_init - Resource managed drm_dev_init()
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * @parent: Parent device object
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * @dev: DRM device
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * @driver: DRM driver
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + *
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * Managed drm_dev_init(). The DRM device initialized with this function is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * automatically released on driver detach. You must supply a
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I think a bit more clarity here would be good:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "... automatically released on driver unbind by callind drm_dev_unplug()."
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> + * &drm_driver.release callback to control the finalization explicitly.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I think a loud warning for these is in order:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "WARNING:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "In generally it is unsafe to use devm functions for drm structures
> > >>>>>>>>> because the lifetimes of &drm_device and the underlying &device do not
> > >>>>>>>>> match. This here works because it doesn't immediately free anything, but
> > >>>>>>>>> only calls drm_dev_unplug(), which internally decrements the &drm_device
> > >>>>>>>>> refcount through drm_dev_put().
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> "All other drm structures must still be explicitly released in the
> > >>>>>>>>> &drm_driver.release callback."
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> While thinking about this I just realized that with this design we have no
> > >>>>>>>>> good place to call drm_atomic_helper_shutdown(). Which we need to, or all
> > >>>>>>>>> kinds of things will leak badly (connectors, fb, ...), but there's no
> > >>>>>>>>> place to call it:
> > >>>>>>>>> - unbind is too early, since we haven't yet called drm_dev_unplug, and the
> > >>>>>>>>> drm_dev_unregister in there must be called _before_ we start to shut
> > >>>>>>>>> down anything.
> > >>>>>>>>> - drm_driver.release is way too late.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Ofc for a real hotunplug there's no point in shutting down the hw (it's
> > >>>>>>>>> already gone), but for a driver unload/unbind it would be nice if this
> > >>>>>>>>> happens automatically and in the right order.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> So not sure what to do here really.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> How about this change: (it breaks the rule of pulling helpers into the
> > >>>>>>>> core, so maybe we should put the devm_ functions into the simple KMS
> > >>>>>>>> helper instead?)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Yeah smells a bit much like midlayer ... What would work is having a pile
> > >>>>>>> more devm_ helper functions, so that we onion-unwrap everything correctly,
> > >>>>>>> and in the right order. So:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - devm_drm_dev_init (always does a drm_dev_put())
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - devm_drm_poll_enable (shuts down the poll helper with a devm action)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - devm_drm_mode_config_reset (does an atomic_helper_shutdown() as it's cleanup action)
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> - devm_drm_dev_register (grabs an additional drm_dev_get() reference so it
> > >>>>>>> can call drm_dev_unplug() unconditionally).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Beautiful! I really like this, it's very flexible.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Where should devm_drm_mode_config_reset() live? It will pull in the
> > >>>>>> atomic helper...
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I think a new drm_devm.c helper would be nice for all this stuff.
> > >>>>> Especially since you can't freely mix devm-based setup/cleanup with
> > >>>>> normal cleanup I think it'd be good to have it all together in one
> > >>>>> place. And perhaps even a code example in the DOC: overview.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> We'd need to make sure some of the cleanup actions dtrt when the device is
> > >>>>>>> gone, but I think we can achieve that by liberally sprinkling
> > >>>>>>> drm_dev_enter/exit over them, e.g. the the cleanup action for
> > >>>>>>> drm_mode_config_reset would be:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>> if (drm_dev_enter())
> > >>>>>>> return;
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> drm_atomic_helper_shutdown();
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> drm_dev_exit();
> > >>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> drm_dev_enter() can only be used to check whether the drm_device is
> > >>>>>> registered or not, it doesn't say anything about the state of the parent
> > >>>>>> device.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> All we know is that the device is being unbound from the driver, we
> > >>>>>> don't know if it's the device that's being removed or if it's the driver
> > >>>>>> that's unregistered.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You're right, both paths will have called drm_dev_unplug by then.
> > >>>>> Silly me. I really liked my idea :-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I have looked at the various call chains:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> driver_unregister ->
> > >>>>>> bus_remove_driver ->
> > >>>>>> driver_detach ->
> > >>>>>> device_release_driver_internal
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> device_unregister ->
> > >>>>>> device_del ->
> > >>>>>> bus_remove_device ->
> > >>>>>> device_release_driver ->
> > >>>>>> device_release_driver_internal
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> sysfs: unbind_store ->
> > >>>>>> device_release_driver ->
> > >>>>>> device_release_driver_internal
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The only way I've found to differentiate between these in a cleanup
> > >>>>>> action is that device_del() uses the bus notifier to signal
> > >>>>>> BUS_NOTIFY_DEL_DEVICE before calling bus_remove_device(). Such a
> > >>>>>> notifier could be used to set a drm_device->parent_removed flag.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hm, this might upset Greg KH's code taste ... maybe there's a better
> > >>>>> way to do this, but best to prototype a patch with this, send it to
> > >>>>> him and ask how to :-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'll leave this to the one that needs it. The tinydrm drivers doesn't
> > >>>> need to touch hw after DRM unregister.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Why is it necessary to call drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() here? Doesn't
> > >>>>>> everything get disabled when userspace closes? It does in my tinydrm
> > >>>>>> world :-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Iirc fbdev/fbcon can result in leaks ... at least we've had patches
> > >>>>> where drivers leaked drm_connector and drm_framebuffer objects, and
> > >>>>> they've been fixed by calling drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() in the
> > >>>>> unload path. Maybe this is cargo-culting, but it goes way back to
> > >>>>> pre-atomic, where drivers called drm_helper_force_disable_all().
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If you try to move the fbcon to your tinydrm drivers (con2fb is
> > >>>>> apparently the cmdline tool you need, never tried it, I only switch
> > >>>>> the kernel's console between fbcon and dummycon and back, not what
> > >>>>> fbcon drivers itself), then I think you should be able to reproduce.
> > >>>>> And maybe you have a better idea how to deal with this all.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Note also that there's been proposals floating around to only close an
> > >>>>> drm_framebuffer, not also remove it (like the current RMFB ioctl
> > >>>>> does), with that closing userspace would not necessarily lead to a
> > >>>>> full cleanup.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Another thing (which doesn't apply to drm_simple_display_pipe drivers)
> > >>>>> is if you have the display on, but no planes showing (i.e. all black).
> > >>>>> Then all the fbs will be cleaned up, but drm_connector will be
> > >>>>> leaking. That's a case where you need drm_atomic_helper_shutdown()
> > >>>>> even if fbcon/fbdev isn't even enabled.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Ok, this means that I don't need to call drm_atomic_helper_shutdown() in
> > >>>> tinydrm. DRM userspace disables the pipe on close and the generic fbdev
> > >>>> emulation also releases everything.
> > >>>> Even so, maybe I should use devm_drm_mode_config_reset() after all to
> > >>>> keep drivers uniform, to avoid confusion: why doesn't he use it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Hm maybe there is an official way to solve this, pulling in Greg+Rafael.
> > >>>
> > >>> Super short summary: We want to start using devm actions to clean up drm
> > >>> drivers. Here's the problem:
> > >>> - For a driver unload/unbind without hotunplug, we want to properly clean
> > >>> up the hardware and shut it all down.
> > >>
> > >> Then do it on probe/disconnect.
> > >>
> > >>> - But if the device is unplugged already, that's probably not the best
> > >>> idea, and we only want to clean up the kernel's resources/allocations.
> > >>
> > >> Again, probe/disconnect will be called either way.
> > >>
> > >> But as you note, memory will NOT be freed by the devm stuff if you
> > >> manually unbind a driver from a device.
> > >>
> > >> So don't touch hardware there, it's not going to work :)
> > >>
> > >>> What's the recommendation here? I see a few options:
> > >>>
> > >>> - Make sure everything can deal with this properly. Hotunplug can happen
> > >>> anytime, so there's a race no matter what.
> > >>
> > >> Yes.
> > >>
> > >>> - Check with the device model whether the struct device is disappearing or
> > >>> whether we're just dealing with a driver unbind (no idea how to do
> > >>> that), and act accordingly.
> > >>
> > >> You don't know that, sorry. Just do any hardware stuff on disconnect.
> > >> Assuming your hardware is still present :)
> > >>
> > >>> - Fundamental question: Touching the hw from devm actions, is that ok? If
> > >>> not, then the pretty nifty plan laid out in this thread wont work.
> > >>
> > >> Nope, that's not going to work, the device could either be long gone, or
> > >> you will not be called due to unbind happening from userspace.
> > >>
> > >> But really, unbind from userspace is very very rare, it's a developer
> > >> thing mostly. Oh and a virtual driver thing, but those people are crazy
> > >> :)
> > >>
> > >>> - Something completely different?
> > >>
> > >> Do it in disconnect :)
> > >
> > > Ah, I forgot to mention the important constraint :-) disconnect/unbind
> > > should be the following sequence:
> > >
> > > 1. Unregister all the userspace interfaces (there's a lot of them) and
> > > make sure all the pending ioctls are done so that from now on
> > > userspace sees lots of -EIO (in case it still has fd open, which is
> > > going to be the normal for hotunplug.
> > >
> > > 2. Shut down hw and all ongoing operations (only relevant for unbind,
> > > but needs to be able to cope with sudden hotunplug on top anyway).
> > >
> > > 3. Clean up the kernel mess and release everything.
> > >
> > > Probe is exactly the other way round, so would perfectly fit into the
> > > devm onion cleanup. See in the commented earlier replies above how
> > > that would match in details, but tldr; if we have to do 2. in
> > > disconnect, then we also have to do 1. in disconnected, and only doing
> > > 3. through devm is almost not worth the bother. But if we could do all
> > > three through devm then simple drivers wouldn't even need any
> > > disconnect/unbind callback at all. That's our motivation for trying to
> > > come up with an answer that's not "do it in disconnect". "do it in
> > > disconnect" is how we do it all today already.
> > >
> > > Yes we're trying to make tiny drivers even smaller, we have enough
> > > nowadays that this stuff would be worth it :-)
> > >
> >
> > I think a solution is to say that drivers that want to touch hw on
> > disconnect needs to use device_driver->remove to do that.
> >
> > This is an example driver that doesn't need to touch hw because it's so
> > simple that userspace has disabled the pipeline:
> >
> > static void drm_driver_release(struct drm_device *drm)
> > {
> > drm_mode_config_cleanup(drm);
> > drm_dev_fini(drm);
> > kfree(drm);
> > }
> >
> > static struct drm_driver drm_driver = {
> > .release = drm_driver_release,
> > /* ... */
> > };
> >
> > static int driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > struct drm_device *drm;
> > int ret;
> >
> > drm = kzalloc(sizeof(*drm), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!drm)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > ret = devm_drm_dev_init(dev, drm, &drm_driver);
> > if (ret) {
> > kfree(drm);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > drm_mode_config_init(drm);
> >
> > /* Aquire various resources, all managed by devres */
> >
> > drm_mode_config_reset(drm);
> >
> > return devm_drm_dev_register(drm);
> > }
> >
> > struct device_driver driver = {
> > .probe = driver_probe,
> > };
> >
> >
> > A driver that wants to touch hardware on disconnect, can look like this:
> >
> > static void drm_driver_release(struct drm_device *drm)
> > {
> > drm_mode_config_cleanup(drm);
> > drm_dev_fini(drm);
> > kfree(drm);
> > }
> >
> > static struct drm_driver drm_driver = {
> > .release = drm_driver_release,
> > /* ... */
> > };
> >
> > static int driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > struct drm_device *drm;
> > int ret;
> >
> > drm = kzalloc(sizeof(*drm), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!drm)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > ret = devm_drm_dev_init(dev, drm, &drm_driver);
> > if (ret) {
> > kfree(drm);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > drm_mode_config_init(drm);
> >
> > /* Aquire various resources, all managed by devres */
> >
> > drm_mode_config_reset(drm);
> >
> > ret = drm_dev_register(drm);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > drm_dev_get(dev); /* If using drm_dev_unplug() */
> >
> > dev_set_drvdata(dev, drm);
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > /* This function is called before devres_release_all() */
> > static int driver_remove(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > struct drm_device *drm = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >
> > drm_dev_unplug(drm); OR drm_dev_unregister(drm);
> > drm_atomic_helper_shutdown(drm)
> >
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > struct device_driver driver = {
> > .probe = driver_probe,
> > .remove = driver_remove,
>
> That's exactly the pattern I'm trying to avoid, because imo your tiny
> driver _also_ should do this. Or we realize that all the current drivers
> doing drm_atomic_helper_shutdown are misguided, but I'm not really
> understanding why.
>
> Having a devm helper which cannot be used for some drivers due to
> fundamental design issues is kinda not great, because it means everyone
> will still use it, and shrug the bugs off as "not my problem". Which is
> what's happening right now with all the devm_kzalloc we have in drm
> drivers that all the get lifetim wrong. But because devm_ is convenient
> everyone uses it, so the driver unload of most drivers is full of bugs.
driver "unload" should not be full of bugs, how would it? Anything
created with devm_() will just be freed when the device really goes away
in the system, it shouldn't call back into the driver.
And yes, devm_() is a crutch, one that I really don't like, but I
understand the apeal. And in 95% of the cases, it can work just fine as
no one ever does unbind/bind from userspace, and if they did, they would
never notice the memory issues.
sorry,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
