linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] drm/lima: fix devfreq refcount imbalance for job timeouts

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]

Message-ID: <CAKGbVbvWAM64T+a6_VRL99araN_2dubu4vO=mqzCoC1p2m_X-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:50:42 +0800
From: Qiang Yu <yuq825@...il.com>
To: Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@...il.com>
Cc: dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, lima@...ts.freedesktop.org, 
	anarsoul@...il.com, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, 
	David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, 
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, christian.koenig@....com, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/6] drm/lima: fix devfreq refcount imbalance for job timeouts

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 7:14 PM Erico Nunes <nunes.erico@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 2:36 AM Qiang Yu <yuq825@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > So this is caused by same job trigger both done and timeout handling?
> > I think a better way to solve this is to make sure only one handler
> > (done or timeout) process the job instead of just making lima_pm_idle()
> > unique.
>
> It's not very clear to me how to best ensure that, with the drm_sched
> software timeout and the irq happening potentially at the same time.
This could be done by stopping scheduler run more job and disable
GP/PP interrupt. Then after sync irq, there should be no more new
irq gets in when we handling timeout.

> I think patch 4 in this series describes and covers the most common
> case that this would be hit. So maybe now this patch could be dropped
> in favour of just that one.
Yes.

> But since this was a bit hard to reproduce and I'm not sure the issue
> is entirely covered by that, I just decided to keep this small change
> as it prevented all the stack trace reproducers I was able to come up
> with.
>
> Erico