lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 2/2] drm: Clear the fence pointer when writeback job signaled
    On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:09:05AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote:
    > Hi Daniel,
    >
    > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:45:13AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
    > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:43 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:29 AM Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@arm.com> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > Hi Lowry,
    > > > >
    > > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:34:08AM +0000, Lowry Li (Arm Technology China) wrote:
    > > > > > Hi Brian,
    > > > > >
    > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:20:04PM +0800, Brian Starkey wrote:
    > > > > > > Hi Lowry,
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Thanks for this cleanup.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:04:45AM +0000, Lowry Li (Arm Technology China) wrote:
    > > > > > > > During it signals the completion of a writeback job, after releasing
    > > > > > > > the out_fence, we'd clear the pointer.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Check if fence left over in drm_writeback_cleanup_job(), release it.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lowry Li (Arm Technology China) <lowry.li@arm.com>
    > > > > > > > ---
    > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
    > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c
    > > > > > > > index ff138b6..43d9e3b 100644
    > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c
    > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c
    > > > > > > > @@ -324,6 +324,9 @@ void drm_writeback_cleanup_job(struct drm_writeback_job *job)
    > > > > > > > if (job->fb)
    > > > > > > > drm_framebuffer_put(job->fb);
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > + if (job->out_fence)
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > I'm thinking it might be a good idea to signal the fence with an error
    > > > > > > here, if it's not already signaled. Otherwise, if there's someone
    > > > > > > waiting (which there shouldn't be), they're going to be waiting a very
    > > > > > > long time :-)
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > Thanks,
    > > > > > > -Brian
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > Here it happened at atomic_check failed and test only commit. For both
    > > > > > cases, the commit has been dropped and it's only a clean up. So here better
    > > > > > not be treated as an error case:)
    > > > >
    > > > > If anyone else has a reference on the fence, then IMO it absolutely is
    > > > > an error to reach this point without the fence being signaled -
    > > > > because it means that the fence will never be signaled.
    > > > >
    > > > > I don't think the API gives you a way to check if this is the last
    > > > > reference, so it's safest to just make sure the fence is signalled
    > > > > before dropping the reference.
    > > > >
    > > > > It just feels wrong to me to have the possibility of a dangling fence
    > > > > which is never going to get signalled; and it's an easy defensive step
    > > > > to make sure it can never happen.
    > > > >
    > > > > I know it _shouldn't_ happen, but we often put in handling for cases
    > > > > which shouldn't happen, because they frequently do happen :-)
    > > >
    > > > We're not as paranoid with the vblank fences either, so not sure why
    > > > we need to be this paranoid with writeback fences. If your driver
    > > > grabs anything from the atomic state in ->atomic_check it's buggy
    > > > anyway.
    > > >
    > > > If you want to fix this properly I think we need to move the call to
    > > > prepare_signalling() in between atomic_check and atomic_commit. Then I
    > > > think it makes sense to also force-complete the fence on error ...
    >
    > Well, fair enough. I'm struggling with "that's too paranoid" vs "fix
    > it properly" though? Is it a "problem" worth fixing or not?

    Up to you to decide that.

    > It seems natural to me to do the fence cleanup in the cleanup function
    > for the object which owns the fence.
    >
    > > >
    > > > > > Since for userspace, it should have been failed or a test only case, so
    > > > > > writebace fence should not be signaled.
    > > > >
    > > > > It's not only userspace that can wait on fences (and in fact this
    > > > > fence will never even reach userspace if the commit fails), the driver
    > > > > may have taken a copy to use for "something".
    > >
    > > I forgot to add: you can check this by looking at the fence reference
    > > count. A WARN_ON if that's more than 1 on cleanup (but also for the
    > > out fences) could be a nice addition.
    >
    > Do we really want to be looking at the fence internals directly like
    > that?

    Wrap it up in a helper like dma_fence_release_private or whatever, which
    combines the check and (hopefully final) _put(). Might need a better name.
    -Daniel

    >
    > Cheers,
    > -Brian
    >
    > > -Daniel
    > > --
    > > Daniel Vetter
    > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
    > > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

    --
    Daniel Vetter
    Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
    http://blog.ffwll.ch
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-08-02 16:07    [W:7.388 / U:0.036 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site