On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 4:24 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 20-10-20, 12:56, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Yeah that's bad practice. Generally you shouldn't need to hold locks > > in setup/teardown code, since there's no other thread which can > > possible hold a reference to anything your touching anymore. Ofc > > excluding quickly grabbing/dropping a lock to insert/remove objects > > into lists and stuff. > > > > The other reason is that especially with anything related to sysfs or > > debugfs, the locking dependencies you're pulling in are enormous: vfs > > locks pull in mm locks (due to mmap) and at that point there's pretty > > much nothing left you're allowed to hold while acquiring such a lock. > > For simple drivers this is no issue, but for fancy drivers (like gpu > > drivers) which need to interact with core mm) this means your > > subsystem is a major pain to use. > > > > Usually the correct fix is to only hold your subsystem locks in > > setup/teardown when absolutely required, and fix any data > > inconsistency issues by reordering your setup/teardown code: When you > > register as the last step and unregister as the first step, there's no > > need for any additional locking. And hence no need to call debugfs > > functions while holding your subsystem locks. > > > > The catch phrase I use for this is "don't solve object lifetime issues > > with locking". Instead use refcounting and careful ordering in > > setup/teardown code. > > This is exactly what I have done in the OPP core, the locks were taken > only when really necessary, though as we have seen now I have missed > that at a single place and that should be fixed as well. Will do that, > thanks. I do have an easy enough way to repro the issue, so if you have a patch I can certainly test it. BR, -R _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
