| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <51311182-b06e-7fcf-ec20-b9657d866bbc@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:45:24 +0200
From: Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
<linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>,
Michel Dänzer <michel@...nzer.net>,
Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>,
Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
Tian Tao <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>,
Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
Melissa Wen <mwen@...lia.com>,
Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov@....com>,
Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@....com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>,
Jack Zhang <Jack.Zhang1@....com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK"
<linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/9] drm/scheduler: Add fence deadline support
Am 21.09.21 um 18:35 schrieb Rob Clark:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 8:57 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 10:45 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:47:55AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
>>>> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
>>>>
>>>> As the finished fence is the one that is exposed to userspace, and
>>>> therefore the one that other operations, like atomic update, would
>>>> block on, we need to propagate the deadline from from the finished
>>>> fence to the actual hw fence.
>>>>
>>>> v2: Split into drm_sched_fence_set_parent() (ckoenig)
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 2 +-
>>>> include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 8 ++++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
>>>> index bcea035cf4c6..4fc41a71d1c7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
>>>> @@ -128,6 +128,30 @@ static void drm_sched_fence_release_finished(struct dma_fence *f)
>>>> dma_fence_put(&fence->scheduled);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static void drm_sched_fence_set_deadline_finished(struct dma_fence *f,
>>>> + ktime_t deadline)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct drm_sched_fence *fence = to_drm_sched_fence(f);
>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&fence->lock, flags);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* If we already have an earlier deadline, keep it: */
>>>> + if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_HAS_DEADLINE_BIT, &f->flags) &&
>>>> + ktime_before(fence->deadline, deadline)) {
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fence->lock, flags);
>>>> + return;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + fence->deadline = deadline;
>>>> + set_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_HAS_DEADLINE_BIT, &f->flags);
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fence->lock, flags);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (fence->parent)
>>>> + dma_fence_set_deadline(fence->parent, deadline);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> static const struct dma_fence_ops drm_sched_fence_ops_scheduled = {
>>>> .get_driver_name = drm_sched_fence_get_driver_name,
>>>> .get_timeline_name = drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name,
>>>> @@ -138,6 +162,7 @@ static const struct dma_fence_ops drm_sched_fence_ops_finished = {
>>>> .get_driver_name = drm_sched_fence_get_driver_name,
>>>> .get_timeline_name = drm_sched_fence_get_timeline_name,
>>>> .release = drm_sched_fence_release_finished,
>>>> + .set_deadline = drm_sched_fence_set_deadline_finished,
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> struct drm_sched_fence *to_drm_sched_fence(struct dma_fence *f)
>>>> @@ -152,6 +177,15 @@ struct drm_sched_fence *to_drm_sched_fence(struct dma_fence *f)
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(to_drm_sched_fence);
>>>>
>>>> +void drm_sched_fence_set_parent(struct drm_sched_fence *s_fence,
>>>> + struct dma_fence *fence)
>>>> +{
>>>> + s_fence->parent = dma_fence_get(fence);
>>>> + if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_HAS_DEADLINE_BIT,
>>>> + &s_fence->finished.flags))
>>> Don't you need the spinlock here too to avoid races? test_bit is very
>>> unordered, so guarantees nothing. Spinlock would need to be both around
>>> ->parent = and the test_bit.
>>>
>>> Entirely aside, but there's discussions going on to preallocate the hw
>>> fence somehow. If we do that we could make the deadline forwarding
>>> lockless here. Having a spinlock just to set the parent is a bit annoying
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Alternative is that you do this locklessly with barriers and a _lot_ of
>>> comments. Would be good to benchmark whether the overhead matters though
>>> first.
>> So, my thinking is that very few (well no) guarantees are made to the
>> fence implementor that their ->set_deadline() is not called multiple
>> times, from multiple threads, etc. And no guarantee that a later
>> deadline is set after an earlier deadline has been set. It is all up
>> to the set_deadline() implementation to deal with these cases.
>>
>> So that means we just need the appropriate barrier-fu to ensure
>> another thread calling drm_sched_fence_set_deadline_finished() sees
>> fence->parent set before the test_bit. It could mean that the backend
>> implementation sees the same deadline set twice, but that is fine.
>>
> something like:
Of hand I think that this should work.
Or rather say I can't see anything wrong with that.
Christian.
>
> -----
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> index 4fc41a71d1c7..7f2af6d1777c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> @@ -132,6 +132,7 @@ static void
> drm_sched_fence_set_deadline_finished(struct dma_fence *f,
> ktime_t deadline)
> {
> struct drm_sched_fence *fence = to_drm_sched_fence(f);
> + struct dma_fence *parent;
> unsigned long flags;
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&fence->lock, flags);
> @@ -148,8 +149,9 @@ static void
> drm_sched_fence_set_deadline_finished(struct dma_fence *f,
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fence->lock, flags);
>
> - if (fence->parent)
> - dma_fence_set_deadline(fence->parent, deadline);
> + parent = smp_load_acquire(&fence->parent);
> + if (parent)
> + dma_fence_set_deadline(parent, deadline);
> }
>
> static const struct dma_fence_ops drm_sched_fence_ops_scheduled = {
> @@ -180,7 +182,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(to_drm_sched_fence);
> void drm_sched_fence_set_parent(struct drm_sched_fence *s_fence,
> struct dma_fence *fence)
> {
> - s_fence->parent = dma_fence_get(fence);
> + smp_store_release(&s_fence->parent, dma_fence_get(fence));
> if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_HAS_DEADLINE_BIT,
> &s_fence->finished.flags))
> dma_fence_set_deadline(fence, s_fence->deadline);
> -----
>
> BR,
> -R
Powered by blists - more mailing lists