From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2388CC433E0 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:21:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF175206E9 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:21:52 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org AF175206E9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=chris-wilson.co.uk Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6386E1BC; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fireflyinternet.com (unknown [77.68.26.236]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5BA6E1BC; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:21:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=78.156.65.138; Received: from localhost (unverified [78.156.65.138]) by fireflyinternet.com (Firefly Internet (M1)) with ESMTP (TLS) id 21826678-1500050 for multiple; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:21:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200715121022.GK3278063@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <20200715104905.11006-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20200715104905.11006-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20200715121022.GK3278063@phenom.ffwll.local> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf/dma-fence: Add quick tests before dma_fence_remove_callback From: Chris Wilson To: Daniel Vetter Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:21:43 +0100 Message-ID: <159481570397.13728.7155187046112827709@build.alporthouse.com> User-Agent: alot/0.9 X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-07-15 13:10:22) > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > When waiting with a callback on the stack, we must remove the callback > > upon wait completion. Since this will be notified by the fence signal > > callback, the removal often contends with the fence->lock being held by > > the signaler. We can look at the list entry to see if the callback was > > already signaled before we take the contended lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > > --- > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > index 8d5bdfce638e..b910d7bc0854 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > @@ -420,6 +420,9 @@ dma_fence_remove_callback(struct dma_fence *fence, struct dma_fence_cb *cb) > > unsigned long flags; > > bool ret; > > > > + if (list_empty(&cb->node)) > > I was about to say "but the races" but then noticed that Paul fixed > list_empty to use READ_ONCE like 5 years ago :-) I'm always going "when exactly do we need list_empty_careful()"? We can rule out a concurrent dma_fence_add_callback() for the same dma_fence_cb, as that is a lost cause. So we only have to worry about the concurrent list_del_init() from dma_fence_signal_locked(). So it's the timing of list_del_init(): WRITE_ONCE(list->next, list) vs READ_ONCE(list->next) == list and we don't need to care about the trailing instructions in list_del_init()... Wait that trailing instruction is actually important here if the dma_fence_cb is on the stack, or other imminent free. Ok, this does need to be list_empty_careful! -Chris _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30DFC433E1 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:21:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9279C206E9 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:21:55 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9279C206E9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=chris-wilson.co.uk Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04AE6EB40; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fireflyinternet.com (unknown [77.68.26.236]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A5BA6E1BC; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 12:21:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=forwardok (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=78.156.65.138; Received: from localhost (unverified [78.156.65.138]) by fireflyinternet.com (Firefly Internet (M1)) with ESMTP (TLS) id 21826678-1500050 for multiple; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:21:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200715121022.GK3278063@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <20200715104905.11006-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20200715104905.11006-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20200715121022.GK3278063@phenom.ffwll.local> From: Chris Wilson To: Daniel Vetter Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 13:21:43 +0100 Message-ID: <159481570397.13728.7155187046112827709@build.alporthouse.com> User-Agent: alot/0.9 Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] dma-buf/dma-fence: Add quick tests before dma_fence_remove_callback X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-07-15 13:10:22) > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > When waiting with a callback on the stack, we must remove the callback > > upon wait completion. Since this will be notified by the fence signal > > callback, the removal often contends with the fence->lock being held by > > the signaler. We can look at the list entry to see if the callback was > > already signaled before we take the contended lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson > > --- > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > index 8d5bdfce638e..b910d7bc0854 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > @@ -420,6 +420,9 @@ dma_fence_remove_callback(struct dma_fence *fence, struct dma_fence_cb *cb) > > unsigned long flags; > > bool ret; > > > > + if (list_empty(&cb->node)) > > I was about to say "but the races" but then noticed that Paul fixed > list_empty to use READ_ONCE like 5 years ago :-) I'm always going "when exactly do we need list_empty_careful()"? We can rule out a concurrent dma_fence_add_callback() for the same dma_fence_cb, as that is a lost cause. So we only have to worry about the concurrent list_del_init() from dma_fence_signal_locked(). So it's the timing of list_del_init(): WRITE_ONCE(list->next, list) vs READ_ONCE(list->next) == list and we don't need to care about the trailing instructions in list_del_init()... Wait that trailing instruction is actually important here if the dma_fence_cb is on the stack, or other imminent free. Ok, this does need to be list_empty_careful! -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx