On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 01:22:45PM -0400, Zack Rusin wrote:
> Quite often it's a little hard to tell if reservations are already held
> in code paths that unpin bo's. While our pinning/unpinning code should
> be more explicit that requires a substential amount of work so instead
> we can avoid the issues by making sure we try to reserve before unpinning.
> Because we unpin those bo's only on destruction/error paths just that check
> tells us if we're already reserved or not and allows to cleanly unpin.
>
> Reviewed-by: Martin Krastev <krastevm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Roland Scheidegger <sroland@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: d1a73c641afd ("drm/vmwgfx: Make sure we unpin no longer needed buffers")
> Cc: dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Zack Rusin <zackr@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_mob.c | 8 ++++----
> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
> index 8087a9013455..03bef9c17e56 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_drv.h
> @@ -1517,6 +1517,21 @@ static inline struct vmw_surface *vmw_surface_reference(struct vmw_surface *srf)
> return srf;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * vmw_bo_unpin_safe - currently pinning requires a reservation to be held
> + * but sometimes it's hard to tell if we're in a callback whose parent
> + * is already holding a reservation, to avoid deadloacks we have to try
> + * to get a reservation explicitly to also try to avoid messing up the
> + * internal ttm lru bo list
> + */
> +static inline void vmw_bo_unpin_safe(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo)
> +{
> + bool locked = dma_resv_trylock(bo->base.resv);
> + ttm_bo_unpin(bo);
> + if (locked)
> + dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> +}
> +
> static inline void vmw_bo_unreference(struct vmw_buffer_object **buf)
> {
> struct vmw_buffer_object *tmp_buf = *buf;
> @@ -1524,7 +1539,7 @@ static inline void vmw_bo_unreference(struct vmw_buffer_object **buf)
> *buf = NULL;
> if (tmp_buf != NULL) {
> if (tmp_buf->base.pin_count > 0)
> - ttm_bo_unpin(&tmp_buf->base);
> + vmw_bo_unpin_safe(&tmp_buf->base);
So in the unreference callback I understand it might be tricky and you
need this, but do all the others below really don't know whether the bo is
locked or not?
Also _trylock is a bit much yolo locking here, I'd minimally put a comment
there that we don't actually care about races, it's just to shut up ttm
locking checks. Whether that's true or not is another question I think.
And if it's just this case here, maybe inline the trylock, and for the
others do a vmw_bo_unpin_unlocked which unconditionally grabs the lock?
-Daniel
> ttm_bo_put(&tmp_buf->base);
> }
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_mob.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_mob.c
> index a0b53141dded..23ffeb2dd6e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_mob.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/vmwgfx/vmwgfx_mob.c
> @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ static int vmw_otable_batch_setup(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
> &batch->otables[i]);
> }
>
> - ttm_bo_unpin(batch->otable_bo);
> + vmw_bo_unpin_safe(batch->otable_bo);
> ttm_bo_put(batch->otable_bo);
> batch->otable_bo = NULL;
> return ret;
> @@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ static void vmw_otable_batch_takedown(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
> vmw_bo_fence_single(bo, NULL);
> ttm_bo_unreserve(bo);
>
> - ttm_bo_unpin(batch->otable_bo);
> + vmw_bo_unpin_safe(batch->otable_bo);
> ttm_bo_put(batch->otable_bo);
> batch->otable_bo = NULL;
> }
> @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ static void vmw_mob_pt_setup(struct vmw_mob *mob,
> void vmw_mob_destroy(struct vmw_mob *mob)
> {
> if (mob->pt_bo) {
> - ttm_bo_unpin(mob->pt_bo);
> + vmw_bo_unpin_safe(mob->pt_bo);
> ttm_bo_put(mob->pt_bo);
> mob->pt_bo = NULL;
> }
> @@ -646,7 +646,7 @@ int vmw_mob_bind(struct vmw_private *dev_priv,
> out_no_cmd_space:
> vmw_fifo_resource_dec(dev_priv);
> if (pt_set_up) {
> - ttm_bo_unpin(mob->pt_bo);
> + vmw_bo_unpin_safe(mob->pt_bo);
> ttm_bo_put(mob->pt_bo);
> mob->pt_bo = NULL;
> }
> --
> 2.27.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
