linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 3/4] drm/ttm: handle already locked BOs during eviction and swapout.

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <MWHPR1201MB0127B30637C83130A8167C12FDC30@MWHPR1201MB0127.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sat, 24 Feb 2018 03:46:03 +0000
From:   "He, Roger" <Hongbo.He@....com>
To:     "He, Roger" <Hongbo.He@....com>,
        "Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@....com>,
        "amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/4] drm/ttm: handle already locked BOs during eviction
 and swapout.

I missed the Per-VM-BO share the reservation object with root bo. So context is not NULL here.
So,  this patch is:

Reviewed-by: Roger He <Hongbo.He@....com>

Thanks
Roger(Hongbo.He)
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian König [mailto:ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 8:06 PM
To: He, Roger <Hongbo.He@....com>; amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/ttm: handle already locked BOs during eviction and swapout.

Am 23.02.2018 um 10:46 schrieb He, Roger:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dri-devel [mailto:dri-devel-bounces@...ts.freedesktop.org] On 
> Behalf Of Christian K?nig
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:58 PM
> To: amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org; dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org; 
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH 3/4] drm/ttm: handle already locked BOs during eviction and swapout.
>
> This solves the problem that when we swapout a BO from a domain we sometimes couldn't make room for it because holding the lock blocks all other BOs with this reservation object.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
>   1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c index d90b1cf10b27..3a44c2ee4155 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> @@ -713,31 +713,30 @@ bool ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct 
> ttm_buffer_object *bo,  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_eviction_valuable);
>   
>   /**
> - * Check the target bo is allowable to be evicted or swapout, including cases:
> - *
> - * a. if share same reservation object with ctx->resv, have 
> assumption
> - * reservation objects should already be locked, so not lock again 
> and
> - * return true directly when either the opreation 
> allow_reserved_eviction
> - * or the target bo already is in delayed free list;
> - *
> - * b. Otherwise, trylock it.
> + * Check if the target bo is allowed to be evicted or swapedout.
>    */
>   static bool ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> -			struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx, bool *locked)
> +					   struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> +					   bool *locked)
>   {
> -	bool ret = false;
> +	/* First check if we can lock it */
> +	*locked = reservation_object_trylock(bo->resv);
> +	if (*locked)
> +		return true;
>   
> -	*locked = false;
> +	/* Check if it's locked because it is part of the current operation 
> +*/
>   	if (bo->resv == ctx->resv) {
>   		reservation_object_assert_held(bo->resv);
> -		if (ctx->allow_reserved_eviction || !list_empty(&bo->ddestroy))
> -			ret = true;
> -	} else {
> -		*locked = reservation_object_trylock(bo->resv);
> -		ret = *locked;
> +		return ctx->allow_reserved_eviction ||
> +			!list_empty(&bo->ddestroy);
>   	}
>   
> -	return ret;
> +	/* Check if it's locked because it was already evicted */
> +	if (ww_mutex_is_owned_by(&bo->resv->lock, NULL))
> +		return true;
>
> For the special case: when command submission with Per-VM-BO enabled, 
> All BOs  a/b/c are always valid BO. After the validation of BOs a and 
> b, when validation of BO c, is it possible to return true and then evict BO a and b by mistake ?
> Because a/b/c share same task_struct.

	No, that's why I check the context as well. BOs explicitly reserved have a non NULL context while BOs trylocked for swapout have 	a NULL context.

	BOs have a non NULL context only when command submission and reserved by ttm_eu_re6serve_buffers  .
	But for Per-VM-BO a/b/c they always are not in BO list, so they will be not reserved and have always NULL context.
	So above case also can happen. Anything missing here?  

>
> +	/* Some other thread is using it, don't touch it */
> +	return false;
>   }
>   
>   static int ttm_mem_evict_first(struct ttm_bo_device *bdev,
> --
> 2.14.1
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

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