Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: mm always protect change to unused_nodes with unused_lock spinlock | From | Robert Noland <> | Date | Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:32:50 -0600 |
| |
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 17:23 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > Dave Airlie wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.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@redhat.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 > >> > >> > >> > Hmm. Ouch. The patch looks correct, although I'm not 100% sure it's OK > to kfree() within a spinlocked region? Perhaps better to take it out.
Would kfree() possibly sleep? I wouldn't think so, if not it should be safe.
robert.
> /Thomas > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july > -- > _______________________________________________ > Dri-devel mailing list > Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel -- Robert Noland <rnoland@2hip.net> 2Hip Networks
| |