[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <21d7e9970911151542n49f15a9dn6481d0bc2bdfbc45@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:42:08 +1000
From: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
To: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.sf.net, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: mm always protect change to unused_nodes with
unused_lock spinlock
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com> wrote:
> unused_nodes modification needs to be protected by unused_lock spinlock.
> Here is an example of an usage where there is no such protection without
> this patch.
>
> Process 1: 1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function modify unused_nodes list)
> 2-spin_lock(spinlock protecting mm struct)
> 3-drm_mm_put_block(this function might modify unused_nodes
> list but doesn't protect modification with unused_lock)
> 4-spin_unlock(spinlock protecting mm struct)
> Process2: 1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function modify unused_nodes list)
> At this point Process1 & Process2 might both be doing modification to
> unused_nodes list. This patch add unused_lock protection into
> drm_mm_put_block to avoid such issue.
Have we got a bug number or reproducer for this?
I've cc'ed Thomas and Chris who were last ppl to touch drm_mm.c for some
sort of acks.
Dave.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c
> index c861d80..97dc5a4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mm.c
> @@ -103,6 +103,11 @@ static struct drm_mm_node *drm_mm_kmalloc(struct drm_mm *mm, int atomic)
> return child;
> }
>
> +/* drm_mm_pre_get() - pre allocate drm_mm_node structure
> + * drm_mm: memory manager struct we are pre-allocating for
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on success or -ENOMEM if allocation fails.
> + */
> int drm_mm_pre_get(struct drm_mm *mm)
> {
> struct drm_mm_node *node;
> @@ -253,12 +258,14 @@ void drm_mm_put_block(struct drm_mm_node *cur)
> prev_node->size += next_node->size;
> list_del(&next_node->ml_entry);
> list_del(&next_node->fl_entry);
> + spin_lock(&mm->unused_lock);
> if (mm->num_unused < MM_UNUSED_TARGET) {
> list_add(&next_node->fl_entry,
> &mm->unused_nodes);
> ++mm->num_unused;
> } else
> kfree(next_node);
> + spin_unlock(&mm->unused_lock);
> } else {
> next_node->size += cur->size;
> next_node->start = cur->start;
> @@ -271,11 +278,13 @@ void drm_mm_put_block(struct drm_mm_node *cur)
> list_add(&cur->fl_entry, &mm->fl_entry);
> } else {
> list_del(&cur->ml_entry);
> + spin_lock(&mm->unused_lock);
> if (mm->num_unused < MM_UNUSED_TARGET) {
> list_add(&cur->fl_entry, &mm->unused_nodes);
> ++mm->num_unused;
> } else
> kfree(cur);
> + spin_unlock(&mm->unused_lock);
> }
> }
>
> --
> 1.6.5.2
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists