On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:32:41AM +0100, Daniel Stone wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 16:13, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Could we merge this controlled by a separate config option? > > > > > > This way we could have the checks upstream without having to fix all the > > > stuff before we do this? > > > > Since it's fully opt-in annotations nothing blows up if we don't merge > > any annotations. So we could start merging the first 3 patches. After > > that the fun starts ... > > > > My rough idea was that first I'd try to tackle display, thus far > > there's 2 actual issues in drivers: > > - amdgpu has some dma_resv_lock in commit_tail, plus a kmalloc. I > > think those should be fairly easy to fix (I'd try a stab at them even) > > - vmwgfx has a full on locking inversion with dma_resv_lock in > > commit_tail, and that one is functional. Not just reading something > > which we can safely assume to be invariant anyway (like the tmz flag > > for amdgpu, or whatever it was). > > > > I've done a pile more annotations patches for other atomic drivers > > now, so hopefully that flushes out any remaining offenders here. Since > > some of the annotations are in helper code worst case we might need a > > dev->mode_config.broken_atomic_commit flag to disable them. At least > > for now I have 0 plans to merge any of these while there's known > > unsolved issues. Maybe if some drivers take forever to get fixed we > > can then apply some duct-tape for the atomic helper annotation patch. > > Instead of a flag we can also copypasta the atomic_commit_tail hook, > > leaving the annotations out and adding a huge warning about that. > > How about an opt-in drm_driver DRIVER_DEADLOCK_HAPPY flag? At first > this could just disable the annotations and nothing else, but as we > see the annotations gaining real-world testing and maturity, we could > eventually make it taint the kernel. You can do that pretty much per-driver, since the annotations are pretty much per-driver. No annotations in your code, no lockdep splat. Only if there's some dma_fence_begin/end_signalling() calls is there even the chance of a problem. E.g. this round has the i915 patch dropped and *traraaaa* intel-gfx-ci is happy (or well at least a lot happier, there's some noise in there that's probably not from my stuff). So I guess if amd wants this, we could do an DRM_AMDGPU_MOAR_LOCKDEP Kconfig or similar. I haven't tested, but I think as long as we don't merge any of the amdgpu specific patches, there's no splat in amdgpu. So with that I think that's plenty enough opt-in for each driver. The only problem is a bit shared helper code like atomic helpers and drm scheduler. There we might need some opt-out (I don't think merging makes sense when most of the users are still broken). -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
