On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>> >>if (!bo_tryreserve()) {
>> >> up_read mmap_sem(); // Release the mmap_sem to avoid deadlocks.
>> >> bo_reserve(); // Wait for the BO to become available (interruptible)
>> >> bo_unreserve(); // Where is bo_wait_unreserved() when we need it, Maarten :P
>> >> return VM_FAULT_RETRY; // Go ahead and retry the VMA walk, after regrabbing
>> >>}
>>
>> Anyway, could you describe what is wrong, with the above solution, because
>> it seems perfectly legal to me.
>
> Luckily the rule of law doesn't have anything to do with this stuff --
> at least I sincerely hope so.
>
> The thing that's wrong with that pattern is that its still not
> deterministic - although its a lot better than the pure trylock. Because
> you have to release and re-acquire with the trylock another user might
> have gotten in again. Its utterly prone to starvation.
>
> The acquire+release does remove the dead/life-lock scenario from the
> FIFO case, since blocking on the acquire will allow the other task to
> run (or even get boosted on -rt).
>
> Aside from that there's nothing particularly wrong with it and lockdep
> should be happy afaict (but I haven't had my morning juice yet).
bo_reserve internally maps to a ww-mutex and task can already hold
ww-mutex (potentially even the same for especially nasty userspace).
So lockdep will complain and I think the only way to properly solve
this is to have lock-dropping slowpaths around all copy_*_user
callsites that already hold a bo_reserve ww_mutex. At least that's
been my conclusion after much head-banging against this issue for
drm/i915, and we've tried a lot approaches ;-)
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
