Hi Daniel,
Thank you for the patch.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> We have lots of these. And the cleanup code tends to be of dubious
> quality. The biggest wrong pattern is that developers use devm_, which
> ties the release action to the underlying struct device, whereas
> all the userspace visible stuff attached to a drm_device can long
> outlive that one (e.g. after a hotunplug while userspace has open
> files and mmap'ed buffers). Give people what they want, but with more
> correctness.
>
> Mostly copied from devres.c, with types adjusted to fit drm_device and
> a few simplifications - I didn't (yet) copy over everything. Since
> the types don't match code sharing looked like a hopeless endeavour.
>
> For now it's only super simplified, no groups, you can't remove
> actions (but kfree exists, we'll need that soon). Plus all specific to
> drm_device ofc, including the logging. Which I didn't bother to make
> compile-time optional, since none of the other drm logging is compile
> time optional either.
>
> One tricky bit here is the chicken&egg between allocating your
> drm_device structure and initiliazing it with drm_dev_init. For
> perfect onion unwinding we'd need to have the action to kfree the
> allocation registered before drm_dev_init registers any of its own
> release handlers. But drm_dev_init doesn't know where exactly the
> drm_device is emebedded into the overall structure, and by the time it
> returns it'll all be too late. And forcing drivers to be able clean up
> everything except the one kzalloc is silly.
>
> Work around this by having a very special final_kfree pointer. This
> also avoids troubles with the list head possibly disappearing from
> underneath us when we release all resources attached to the
> drm_device.
This is all a very good idea ! Many subsystems are plagged by drivers
using devm_k*alloc to allocate data accessible by userspace. Since the
introduction of devm_*, we've likely reduced the number of memory leaks,
but I'm pretty sure we've increased the risk of crashes as I've seen
some drivers that used .release() callbacks correctly being naively
converted to incorrect devm_* usage :-(
This leads me to a question: if other subsystems have the same problem,
could we turn this implementation into something more generic ? It
doesn't have to be done right away and shouldn't block merging this
series, but I think it would be very useful.
> v2: Do all the kerneldoc at the end, to avoid lots of fairly pointless
> shuffling while getting everything into shape.
>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst | 6 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile | 3 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c | 13 ++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_internal.h | 3 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c | 173 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> include/drm/drm_device.h | 12 ++
> include/drm/drm_managed.h | 25 ++++
> include/drm/drm_print.h | 6 +
> 8 files changed, 239 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c
> create mode 100644 include/drm/drm_managed.h
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> index a73320576ca9..a6b6145fda78 100644
> --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-internals.rst
> @@ -132,6 +132,12 @@ be unmapped; on many devices, the ROM address decoder is shared with
> other BARs, so leaving it mapped could cause undesired behaviour like
> hangs or memory corruption.
>
> +Managed Resources
> +-----------------
> +
> +.. kernel-doc:: drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c
> + :doc: managed resources
> +
> Bus-specific Device Registration and PCI Support
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile b/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile
> index ca0ca775d37f..53d8fa170143 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/Makefile
> @@ -17,7 +17,8 @@ drm-y := drm_auth.o drm_cache.o \
> drm_plane.o drm_color_mgmt.o drm_print.o \
> drm_dumb_buffers.o drm_mode_config.o drm_vblank.o \
> drm_syncobj.o drm_lease.o drm_writeback.o drm_client.o \
> - drm_client_modeset.o drm_atomic_uapi.o drm_hdcp.o
> + drm_client_modeset.o drm_atomic_uapi.o drm_hdcp.o \
> + drm_managed.o
>
> drm-$(CONFIG_DRM_LEGACY) += drm_legacy_misc.o drm_bufs.o drm_context.o drm_dma.o drm_scatter.o drm_lock.o
> drm-$(CONFIG_DRM_LIB_RANDOM) += lib/drm_random.o
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> index 9fcd6ab3c154..3e5627d6eba6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_drv.c
> @@ -629,6 +629,9 @@ int drm_dev_init(struct drm_device *dev,
> dev->dev = get_device(parent);
> dev->driver = driver;
>
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dev->managed.resources);
> + spin_lock_init(&dev->managed.lock);
> +
> /* no per-device feature limits by default */
> dev->driver_features = ~0u;
>
> @@ -828,8 +831,16 @@ static void drm_dev_release(struct kref *ref)
> dev->driver->release(dev);
> } else {
> drm_dev_fini(dev);
> - kfree(dev);
> + if (!dev->managed.final_kfree) {
> + WARN_ON(!list_empty(&dev->managed.resources));
> + kfree(dev);
> + }
> }
> +
> + drm_managed_release(dev);
> +
> + if (dev->managed.final_kfree)
> + kfree(dev->managed.final_kfree);
Should we do this even if the driver implements .release() ? The
callback may free dev.
> }
>
> /**
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_internal.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_internal.h
> index aeec2e68d772..8c2628dfc6c7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_internal.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_internal.h
> @@ -89,6 +89,9 @@ void drm_prime_remove_buf_handle_locked(struct drm_prime_file_private *prime_fpr
> struct drm_minor *drm_minor_acquire(unsigned int minor_id);
> void drm_minor_release(struct drm_minor *minor);
>
> +/* drm_managed.c */
> +void drm_managed_release(struct drm_device *dev);
> +
> /* drm_vblank.c */
> void drm_vblank_disable_and_save(struct drm_device *dev, unsigned int pipe);
> void drm_vblank_cleanup(struct drm_device *dev);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..ee7c7253af61
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,173 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2020 Intel
> + *
> + * Based on drivers/base/devres.c
> + */
> +
> +#include <drm/drm_managed.h>
> +
> +#include <linux/list.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> +
> +#include <drm/drm_device.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_print.h>
> +
> +/**
> + * DOC: managed resources
> + *
> + * Inspired by sturct &device managed resources, but tied to the lifetime of
s/sturct/struct/
> + * struct &drm_device, which can outlive the underlying physical device, usually
> + * when userspace has some open files and other handles to resources still open.
> + */
> +struct drmres_node {
> + struct list_head entry;
> + drmres_release_t release;
> + const char *name;
> + size_t size;
> +};
> +
> +struct drmres {
> + struct drmres_node node;
> + /*
> + * Some archs want to perform DMA into kmalloc caches
> + * and need a guaranteed alignment larger than
> + * the alignment of a 64-bit integer.
> + * Thus we use ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN here and get exactly the same
> + * buffer alignment as if it was allocated by plain kmalloc().
> + */
Do we want to make this API usable for DMA ?
> + u8 __aligned(ARCH_KMALLOC_MINALIGN) data[];
> +};
> +
> +void drm_managed_release(struct drm_device *dev)
> +{
> +
Extra blank line.
> + struct drmres *dr, *tmp;
I'm sure a better name than tmp can be found. res, resource or node ?
> +
> + drm_dbg_drmres(dev, "drmres release begin\n");
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(dr, tmp, &dev->managed.resources, node.entry) {
> + drm_dbg_drmres(dev, "REL %p %s (%lu bytes)\n",
> + dr, dr->node.name, (unsigned long) dr->node.size);
No need to cast to unsigned long, you can replace %lu with %zu instead.
> +
> + if (dr->node.release)
> + dr->node.release(dev, dr->node.size ? dr->data : NULL);
Shouldn't this be
dr->node.release(dev, dr->node.size ? *(void **)&dr->data : NULL);
?
> +
> + list_del(&dr->node.entry);
> + kfree(dr);
> + }
> + drm_dbg_drmres(dev, "drmres release end\n");
> +}
> +
> +static __always_inline struct drmres * alloc_dr(drmres_release_t release,
> + size_t size, gfp_t gfp, int nid)
Why always inline ?
Let's give the function a better name, even if it's internal. alloc_dr
sounds like it could conflict, and it's also not very clear in a
backtrace that it's DRM-specific. drmm_alloc_resource ?
> +{
> + size_t tot_size;
> + struct drmres *dr;
> +
> + /* We must catch any near-SIZE_MAX cases that could overflow. */
> + if (unlikely(check_add_overflow(sizeof(*dr), size, &tot_size)))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + dr = kmalloc_node_track_caller(tot_size, gfp, nid);
> + if (unlikely(!dr))
> + return NULL;
> +
> + memset(dr, 0, offsetof(struct drmres, data));
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&dr->node.entry);
> + dr->node.release = release;
> + dr->node.size = size;
> +
> + return dr;
> +}
> +
> +void del_dr(struct drm_device *dev, struct drmres *dr)
And drmm_del_resource ?
> +{
> + list_del_init(&dr->node.entry);
> +
> + drm_dbg_drmres(dev, "DEL %p %s (%lu bytes)\n",
> + dr, dr->node.name, (unsigned long) dr->node.size);
> +}
> +
> +void add_dr(struct drm_device *dev, struct drmres *dr)
And drmm_add_resource ?
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->managed.lock, flags);
> + list_add(&dr->node.entry, &dev->managed.resources);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->managed.lock, flags);
> +
> + drm_dbg_drmres(dev, "ADD %p %s (%lu bytes)\n",
> + dr, dr->node.name, (unsigned long) dr->node.size);
> +}
> +
> +void drmm_add_final_kfree(struct drm_device *dev, void *parent)
> +{
> + WARN_ON(dev->managed.final_kfree);
> + dev->managed.final_kfree = parent;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drmm_add_final_kfree);
As you mentioned this is quite a bit of a hack, but I think we can live
with it for now.
> +
> +int __drmm_add_action(struct drm_device *dev,
> + drmres_release_t action,
> + void *data, const char *name)
> +{
> + struct drmres *dr;
> + void **void_ptr;
> +
> + dr = alloc_dr(action, data ? sizeof(void*) : 0,
> + GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO,
> + dev_to_node(dev->dev));
> + if (!dr)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + dr->node.name = name;
> + void_ptr = (void **) dr->data;
I'd write (void **)&dr->data; to make it clear that you're taking the
address of the data array. Arrays decay to pointers in C, so it's
equivalent, but with & I had to realize data was an array before
figuring out what the code was doing.
> + *void_ptr = data;
I may be mistaken, but if data == NULL, you pass 0 as the size to
alloc_dr, and dr will have an empty data array. Aren't you then
overflowing your allocation ?
> +
> + add_dr(dev, dr);
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__drmm_add_action);
> +
> +void *drmm_kmalloc(struct drm_device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> + struct drmres *dr;
> +
> + dr = alloc_dr(NULL, size, gfp, dev_to_node(dev->dev));
> + if (!dr)
> + return NULL;
> + dr->node.name = "kmalloc";
> +
> + add_dr(dev, dr);
> +
> + return dr->data;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drmm_kmalloc);
> +
> +void drmm_kfree(struct drm_device *dev, void *data)
> +{
> + struct drmres *dr = NULL, *tmp;
res, resource or node here too ?
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + if (!data)
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->managed.lock, flags);
> + list_for_each_entry(tmp, &dev->managed.resources, node.entry) {
> + if (tmp->data == data) {
> + dr = tmp;
> + del_dr(dev, dr);
> + break;
> + }
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->managed.lock, flags);
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(!dr))
> + return;
> +
> + kfree(dr);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(drmm_kfree);
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_device.h b/include/drm/drm_device.h
> index bb60a949f416..2790c9ed614e 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm_device.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_device.h
> @@ -67,6 +67,18 @@ struct drm_device {
> /** @dev: Device structure of bus-device */
> struct device *dev;
>
> + /**
> + * @managed:
> + *
> + * Managed resources linked to the lifetime of this &drm_device as
> + * tracked by @ref.
> + */
> + struct {
> + struct list_head resources;
> + void *final_kfree;
> + spinlock_t lock;
Would it be a good time to #include <linux/spinlock.h> at the top ?
> + } managed;
> +
> /** @driver: DRM driver managing the device */
> struct drm_driver *driver;
>
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_managed.h b/include/drm/drm_managed.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..75f2c8932c69
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_managed.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
No header guard ?
> +
> +#include <linux/types.h>
> +#include <linux/gfp.h>
Alphabetically sorted ?
> +
> +struct drm_device;
> +
> +typedef void (*drmres_release_t)(struct drm_device *dev, void *res);
> +
> +#define drmm_add_action(dev, action, data) \
> + __drmm_add_action(dev, action, data, #action)
> +
> +int __must_check __drmm_add_action(struct drm_device *dev,
> + drmres_release_t action,
> + void *data, const char *name);
> +
> +void drmm_add_final_kfree(struct drm_device *dev, void *parent);
> +
> +void *drmm_kmalloc(struct drm_device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp) __malloc;
> +static inline void *drmm_kzalloc(struct drm_device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
> +{
> + return drmm_kmalloc(dev, size, gfp | __GFP_ZERO);
> +}
> +
> +void drmm_kfree(struct drm_device *dev, void *data);
> diff --git a/include/drm/drm_print.h b/include/drm/drm_print.h
> index ca7cee8e728a..1c9417430d08 100644
> --- a/include/drm/drm_print.h
> +++ b/include/drm/drm_print.h
> @@ -313,6 +313,10 @@ enum drm_debug_category {
> * @DRM_UT_DP: Used in the DP code.
> */
> DRM_UT_DP = 0x100,
> + /**
> + * @DRM_UT_DRMRES: Used in the drm managed resources code.
> + */
> + DRM_UT_DRMRES = 0x200,
> };
>
> static inline bool drm_debug_enabled(enum drm_debug_category category)
> @@ -442,6 +446,8 @@ void drm_dev_dbg(const struct device *dev, enum drm_debug_category category,
> drm_dev_dbg((drm)->dev, DRM_UT_LEASE, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> #define drm_dbg_dp(drm, fmt, ...) \
> drm_dev_dbg((drm)->dev, DRM_UT_DP, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
> +#define drm_dbg_drmres(drm, fmt, ...) \
> + drm_dev_dbg((drm)->dev, DRM_UT_DRMRES, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__)
>
>
> /*
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
