Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [RFC PATCH 1/2] dma-fence: Avoid establishing a locking order between fence classes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am 01.12.21 um 11:15 schrieb Thomas Hellström (Intel):
[SNIP]

What we could do is to avoid all this by not calling the callback with the lock held in the first place.

If that's possible that might be a good idea, pls also see below.

The problem with that is dma_fence_signal_locked()/dma_fence_signal_timestamp_locked(). If we could avoid using that or at least allow it to drop the lock then we could call the callback without holding it.

Somebody would need to audit the drivers and see if holding the lock is really necessary anywhere.




/Thomas

Oh, and a follow up question:

If there was a way to break the recursion on final put() (using the same basic approach as patch 2 in this series uses to break recursion in enable_signaling()), so that none of these containers did require any special treatment, would it be worth pursuing? I guess it might be possible by having the callbacks drop the references rather than the loop in the final put. + a couple of changes in code iterating over the fence pointers.

That won't really help, you just move the recursion from the final put into the callback.

How do we recurse from the callback? The introduced fence_put() of individual fence pointers doesn't recurse anymore (at most 1 level), and any callback recursion is broken by the irq_work?

Yeah, but then you would need to take another lock to avoid racing with dma_fence_array_signaled().


I figure the big amount of work would be to adjust code that iterates over the individual fence pointers to recognize that they are rcu protected.

Could be that we could solve this with RCU, but that sounds like a lot of churn for no gain at all.

In other words even with the problems solved I think it would be a really bad idea to allow chaining of dma_fence_array objects.

Yes, that was really the question, Is it worth pursuing this? I'm not really suggesting we should allow this as an intentional feature. I'm worried, however, that if we allow these containers to start floating around cross-driver (or even internally) disguised as ordinary dma_fences, they would require a lot of driver special casing, or else completely unexpeced WARN_ON()s and lockdep splats would start to turn up, scaring people off from using them. And that would be a breeding ground for hairy driver-private constructs.

Well the question is why we would want to do it?

If it's to avoid inter driver lock dependencies by avoiding to call the callback with the spinlock held, then yes please. We had tons of problems with that, resulting in irq_work and work_item delegation all over the place.

If it's to allow nesting of dma_fence_array instances, then it's most likely a really bad idea even if we fix all the locking order problems.

Christian.


/Thomas



Christian.



Thanks,

/Thomas






[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux