Commit edf6b76f authored by Chris Wilson's avatar Chris Wilson

drm/i915: Add smp_rmb() to busy ioctl's RCU dance

In the debate as to whether the second read of active->request is
ordered after the dependent reads of the first read of active->request,
just give in and throw a smp_rmb() in there so that ordering of loads is
assured.

v2: Explain the manual smp_rmb()
Signed-off-by: default avatarChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Reviewed-by: default avatarDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1470731014-6894-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
parent 87b723a1
......@@ -3733,7 +3733,7 @@ i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin_view(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
i915_vma_unpin(i915_gem_obj_to_ggtt_view(obj, view));
}
static __always_inline unsigned __busy_read_flag(unsigned int id)
static __always_inline unsigned int __busy_read_flag(unsigned int id)
{
/* Note that we could alias engines in the execbuf API, but
* that would be very unwise as it prevents userspace from
......@@ -3751,7 +3751,7 @@ static __always_inline unsigned int __busy_write_id(unsigned int id)
return id;
}
static __always_inline unsigned
static __always_inline unsigned int
__busy_set_if_active(const struct i915_gem_active *active,
unsigned int (*flag)(unsigned int id))
{
......@@ -3768,19 +3768,45 @@ __busy_set_if_active(const struct i915_gem_active *active,
id = request->engine->exec_id;
/* Check that the pointer wasn't reassigned and overwritten. */
/* Check that the pointer wasn't reassigned and overwritten.
*
* In __i915_gem_active_get_rcu(), we enforce ordering between
* the first rcu pointer dereference (imposing a
* read-dependency only on access through the pointer) and
* the second lockless access through the memory barrier
* following a successful atomic_inc_not_zero(). Here there
* is no such barrier, and so we must manually insert an
* explicit read barrier to ensure that the following
* access occurs after all the loads through the first
* pointer.
*
* It is worth comparing this sequence with
* raw_write_seqcount_latch() which operates very similarly.
* The challenge here is the visibility of the other CPU
* writes to the reallocated request vs the local CPU ordering.
* Before the other CPU can overwrite the request, it will
* have updated our active->request and gone through a wmb.
* During the read here, we want to make sure that the values
* we see have not been overwritten as we do so - and we do
* that by serialising the second pointer check with the writes
* on other other CPUs.
*
* The corresponding write barrier is part of
* rcu_assign_pointer().
*/
smp_rmb();
if (request == rcu_access_pointer(active->request))
return flag(id);
} while (1);
}
static inline unsigned
static __always_inline unsigned int
busy_check_reader(const struct i915_gem_active *active)
{
return __busy_set_if_active(active, __busy_read_flag);
}
static inline unsigned
static __always_inline unsigned int
busy_check_writer(const struct i915_gem_active *active)
{
return __busy_set_if_active(active, __busy_write_id);
......
......@@ -490,6 +490,9 @@ __i915_gem_active_get_rcu(const struct i915_gem_active *active)
* incremented) then the following read for rcu_access_pointer()
* must occur after the atomic operation and so confirm
* that this request is the one currently being tracked.
*
* The corresponding write barrier is part of
* rcu_assign_pointer().
*/
if (!request || request == rcu_access_pointer(active->request))
return rcu_pointer_handoff(request);
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment