Re: [PATCH 04/10] drm/ttm: change fence_lock to inner lock, v3

From: Thomas Hellstrom <thomas@shipmail.org>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <m.b.lankhorst@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@vmware.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] drm/ttm: change fence_lock to inner lock, v3
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:48:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <50AB35B6.4050605@shipmail.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50AA5160.7070106@gmail.com>

On 11/19/2012 04:33 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Op 19-11-12 16:04, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
>> On 11/19/2012 03:17 PM, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This patch looks mostly good, although I think ttm_bo_cleanup_refs becomes overly complicated:
>>> Could this do, or am I missing something?
>>>
>> Actually, my version is bad, because ttm_bo_wait() is called with the lru lock held.
>>
>> /Thomas
> Oh digging through it made me remember why I had to release the reservation early and
> had to allow move_notify to be called without reservation.
>
> Fortunately move_notify has a NULL parameter, which is the only time that happens,
> so you can still check do BUG_ON(mem != NULL && !ttm_bo_reserved(bo)); in your
> move_notify handler.
>
> 05/10 removed the loop and assumed no new fence could be attached after the driver has
> declared the bo dead.
>
> However, at that point it may no longer hold a reservation to confirm this, that's why
> I moved the cleanup to be done in the release_list handler. It could still be done in
> ttm_bo_release, but we no longer have a reservation after we waited. Getting
> a reservation can fail if the bo is imported for example.
>
> While it would be true that in that case a new fence may be attached as well, that
> would be less harmful since that operation wouldn't involve this device, so the
> ttm bo can still be removed in that case. When that time comes I should probably
> fix up that WARN_ON(ret) in ttm_bo_cleanup_refs. :-)
>
> I did add a WARN_ON(!atomic_read(&bo->kref.refcount)); to
> ttm_bo_reserve and ttm_eu_reserve_buffers to be sure nothing is done on the device
> itself. If that is too paranoid, those WARN_ON's could be dropped. I prefer to leave them
> in for a kernel release or 2. But according to the rules that would be the only time you
> could attach a new fence and trigger the WARN_ON for now..

Hmm, I'd appreciate if you could group patches with functional changes 
that depend on eachother togeteher,
and "this is done because ...", which makes it much easier to review, 
(and to follow the commit history in case
something goes terribly wrong and we need to revert).

Meanwhile I'll take a look at the final ttm_bo.c and see if I can spot 
any culprits.

In general, as long as a bo is on a LRU list, we must be able to attach 
fences because of accelerated eviction.

/Thomas

> ~Maarten
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel