Op 12-09-13 17:06, Peter Zijlstra schreef: > Hi Dave, > > So I'm poking around the preemption code and stumbled upon: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c: set_need_resched(); > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c: set_need_resched(); > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_vm.c: set_need_resched(); > drivers/gpu/drm/udl/udl_gem.c: set_need_resched(); > > All these sites basically do: > > while (!trylock()) > yield(); > > which is a horrible and broken locking pattern. > > Firstly its deadlock prone, suppose the faulting process is a FIFOn+1 > task that preempted the lock holder at FIFOn. > > Secondly the implementation is worse than usual by abusing > VM_FAULT_NOPAGE, which is supposed to install a PTE so that the fault > doesn't retry, but you're using it as a get out of fault path. And > you're using set_need_resched() which is not something a driver should > _ever_ touch. > > Now I'm going to take away set_need_resched() -- and while you can > 'reimplement' it using set_thread_flag() you're not going to do that > because it will be broken due to changes to the preempt code. > > So please as to fix ASAP and don't allow anybody to trick you into > merging silly things like that again ;-) > Agreed, but this is a case of locking inversion. How do you propose to get around that? ~Maarten _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
