On Tue, 2019-04-23 at 10:30 +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 13:48 -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> > Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> > > Since the OOM interrupt directly deals with the binner bo, it doesn't
> > > make sense to try and handle it without a binner buffer registered.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c
> > > index ffd0a4388752..723dc86b4511 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vc4/vc4_irq.c
> > > @@ -64,6 +64,9 @@ vc4_overflow_mem_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > struct vc4_exec_info *exec;
> > > unsigned long irqflags;
> > >
> > > + if (!bo)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > bin_bo_slot = vc4_v3d_get_bin_slot(vc4);
> > > if (bin_bo_slot < 0) {
> > > DRM_ERROR("Couldn't allocate binner overflow mem\n");
> > > --
> > > 2.21.0
> >
> > I don't think this is going to be race-free. You're checking outside of
> > a lock, then proceeding to use it even if (in patch 4) the bin BO was in
> > the process of being freed during the file close path. Can we put all
> > of the overflow process here under the same lock as freeing?
>
> Definitely, sorry I missed that.
That being said, I think it should be fixed in 4/4 since this patch is
not problematic on its own (we haven't introduced the mutex/kref yet).
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Kocialkowski, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
