linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: Remove deprecated create_singlethread

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:12:52 +0900
From:	Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Bhaktipriya Shridhar <bhaktipriya96@...il.com>,
	Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>,
	Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
	dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/radeon: Remove deprecated
 create_singlethread_workqueue

On 06.07.2016 06:06, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 12:58:32PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> On 02.07.2016 22:46, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jul 02, 2016 at 04:33:50PM +0530, Bhaktipriya Shridhar wrote:
>>>> alloc_workqueue replaces deprecated create_singlethread_workqueue().
>>>>
>>>> A dedicated workqueue has been used since work items need to be flushed
>>>> as a group rather than individually.
> 
> There seem to be two work items involved, the flip one and unpin one.
> Provided that there's no ordering requirement between the two, can't
> we just flush them individually?

There is an ordering requirement between the two queues, but it's
enforced by the driver (by only queuing the unpin work once a flip has
completed, which only happens after the corresponding flip work has run).

Not being very familiar with the workqueue APIs, I'll describe how it's
supposed to work from a driver POV, which will hopefully help you guys
decide on the most appropriate alloc_workqueue parameters.

There is one flip work queue for each hardware CRTC. At most one
radeon_flip_work_func item can be queued for any of them at any time.
When a radeon_flip_work_func item is queued, it should be executed ASAP
(so WQ_HIGHPRI might be appropriate?).

In contrast, the radeon_unpin_work_func items aren't particularly
urgent, and it's okay for several of them to be queued up. So I guess it
would actually make sense to use a different workqueue for them, maybe
even the default one?

>>>> Since there are only a fixed number of work items, explicit concurrency
>>>> limit is unnecessary here.
>>>
>>> What are the involved work items?
>>
>> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_display.c:radeon_flip_work_func()
>>
>>> Is it safe to run them concurrently?
>>
>> Concurrently with what exactly?
> 
> The flip and unpin work items.

Yes, it's safe to run those concurrently.

-- 
Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer