On Tue, Jan 09, 2024 at 12:06:58PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> Hi Daniel / Sima,
>
> Le lundi 08 janvier 2024 à 20:19 +0100, Daniel Vetter a écrit :
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 05:27:33PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > Le lundi 08 janvier 2024 à 16:29 +0100, Daniel Vetter a écrit :
> > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 03:21:21PM +0100, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > > > Hi Daniel (Sima?),
> > > > >
> > > > > Le lundi 08 janvier 2024 à 13:39 +0100, Daniel Vetter a écrit :
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 01:00:55PM +0100, Paul Cercueil
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > +static void ffs_dmabuf_signal_done(struct ffs_dma_fence
> > > > > > > *dma_fence, int ret)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + struct ffs_dmabuf_priv *priv = dma_fence->priv;
> > > > > > > + struct dma_fence *fence = &dma_fence->base;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + dma_fence_get(fence);
> > > > > > > + fence->error = ret;
> > > > > > > + dma_fence_signal(fence);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + dma_buf_unmap_attachment(priv->attach, dma_fence-
> > > > > > > >sgt,
> > > > > > > dma_fence->dir);
> > > > > > > + dma_fence_put(fence);
> > > > > > > + ffs_dmabuf_put(priv->attach);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So this can in theory take the dma_resv lock, and if the usb
> > > > > > completion
> > > > > > isn't an unlimited worker this could hold up completion of
> > > > > > future
> > > > > > dma_fence, resulting in a deadlock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Needs to be checked how usb works, and if stalling
> > > > > > indefinitely
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > io_complete callback can hold up the usb stack you need to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - drop a dma_fence_begin/end_signalling annotations in here
> > > > > > - pull out the unref stuff into a separate preallocated
> > > > > > worker
> > > > > > (or at
> > > > > > least the final unrefs for ffs_dma_buf).
> > > > >
> > > > > Only ffs_dmabuf_put() can attempt to take the dma_resv and
> > > > > would
> > > > > have
> > > > > to be in a worker, right? Everything else would be inside the
> > > > > dma_fence_begin/end_signalling() annotations?
> > > >
> > > > Yup. Also I noticed that unlike the iio patches you don't have
> > > > the
> > > > dma_buf_unmap here in the completion path (or I'm blind?), which
> > > > helps a
> > > > lot with avoiding trouble.
> > >
> > > They both call dma_buf_unmap_attachment() in the "signal done"
> > > callback, the only difference I see is that it is called after the
> > > dma_fence_put() in the iio patches, while it's called before
> > > dma_fence_put() here.
> >
> > I was indeed blind ...
> >
> > So the trouble is this wont work because:
> > - dma_buf_unmap_attachment() requires dma_resv_lock. This is a
> > somewhat
> > recent-ish change from 47e982d5195d ("dma-buf: Move
> > dma_buf_map_attachment() to dynamic locking specification"), so
> > maybe
> > old kernel or you don't have full lockdep enabled to get the right
> > splat.
> >
> > - dma_fence critical section forbids dma_resv_lock
> >
> > Which means you need to move this out, but then there's the potential
> > cache management issue. Which current gpu drivers just kinda ignore
> > because it doesn't matter for current use-case, they all cache the
> > mapping
> > for about as long as the attachment exists. You might want to do the
> > same,
> > unless that somehow breaks a use-case you have, I have no idea about
> > that.
> > If something breaks with unmap_attachment moved out of the fence
> > handling
> > then I guess it's high time to add separate cache-management only to
> > dma_buf (and that's probably going to be quite some wiring up, not
> > sure
> > even how easy that would be to do nor what exactly the interface
> > should
> > look like).
>
> Ok. Then I'll just cache the mapping for now, I think.
Yeah I think that's simplest. I did ponder a bit and I don't think it'd be
too much pain to add the cache-management functions for device
attachments/mappings. But it would be quite some typing ...
-Sima
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
