Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-07-15 13:10:22) > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > When waiting with a callback on the stack, we must remove the callback > > upon wait completion. Since this will be notified by the fence signal > > callback, the removal often contends with the fence->lock being held by > > the signaler. We can look at the list entry to see if the callback was > > already signaled before we take the contended lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > index 8d5bdfce638e..b910d7bc0854 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > @@ -420,6 +420,9 @@ dma_fence_remove_callback(struct dma_fence *fence, struct dma_fence_cb *cb) > > unsigned long flags; > > bool ret; > > > > + if (list_empty(&cb->node)) > > I was about to say "but the races" but then noticed that Paul fixed > list_empty to use READ_ONCE like 5 years ago :-) I'm always going "when exactly do we need list_empty_careful()"? We can rule out a concurrent dma_fence_add_callback() for the same dma_fence_cb, as that is a lost cause. So we only have to worry about the concurrent list_del_init() from dma_fence_signal_locked(). So it's the timing of list_del_init(): WRITE_ONCE(list->next, list) vs READ_ONCE(list->next) == list and we don't need to care about the trailing instructions in list_del_init()... Wait that trailing instruction is actually important here if the dma_fence_cb is on the stack, or other imminent free. Ok, this does need to be list_empty_careful! -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
