Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] drm/scheduler: Don't call wait_event_killable for
 signaled process.
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=c3=a4nzer?= <michel@daenzer.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, David.Panariti@amd.com,
        oleg@redhat.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, Alexander.Deucher@amd.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, Christian.Koenig@amd.com
References: <1524583836-12130-1-git-send-email-andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
 <1524583836-12130-3-git-send-email-andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
 <7313704c-0693-0bb9-8818-99cd2b7c0ca0@daenzer.net>
 <20180424194418.GE25142@phenom.ffwll.local>
From:   Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com>
Message-ID: <aa2d8587-651e-2c24-a673-4682e7035a8f@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:02:40 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180424194418.GE25142@phenom.ffwll.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: amd.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2018 21:02:45.3583 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: b12043f4-bf6a-4120-46ea-08d5aa26badc
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR1201MB0113
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 04/24/2018 03:44 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 05:46:52PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> Adding the dri-devel list, since this is driver independent code.
>>
>>
>> On 2018-04-24 05:30 PM, Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
>>> Avoid calling wait_event_killable when you are possibly being called
>>> from get_signal routine since in that case you end up in a deadlock
>>> where you are alreay blocked in singla processing any trying to wait
>> Multiple typos here, "[...] already blocked in signal processing and [...]"?
>>
>>
>>> on a new signal.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/gpu_scheduler.c | 5 +++--
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/gpu_scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/gpu_scheduler.c
>>> index 088ff2b..09fd258 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/gpu_scheduler.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/gpu_scheduler.c
>>> @@ -227,9 +227,10 @@ void drm_sched_entity_do_release(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
>>>   		return;
>>>   	/**
>>>   	 * The client will not queue more IBs during this fini, consume existing
>>> -	 * queued IBs or discard them on SIGKILL
>>> +	 * queued IBs or discard them when in death signal state since
>>> +	 * wait_event_killable can't receive signals in that state.
>>>   	*/
>>> -	if ((current->flags & PF_SIGNALED) && current->exit_code == SIGKILL)
>>> +	if (current->flags & PF_SIGNALED)
> You want fatal_signal_pending() here, instead of inventing your own broken
> version.

I rely on current->flags & PF_SIGNALED because this being set from 
within get_signal,
meaning I am within signal processing  in which case I want to avoid any 
signal based wait for that task,
 From what i see in the code, task_struct.pending.signal is being set 
for other threads in same
group (zap_other_threads) or for other scenarios, those task are still 
able to receive signals
so calling wait_event_killable there will not have problem.
>>>   		entity->fini_status = -ERESTARTSYS;
>>>   	else
>>>   		entity->fini_status = wait_event_killable(sched->job_scheduled,
> But really this smells like a bug in wait_event_killable, since
> wait_event_interruptible does not suffer from the same bug. It will return
> immediately when there's a signal pending.

Even when wait_event_interruptible is called as following - 
...->do_signal->get_signal->....->wait_event_interruptible ?
I haven't tried it but wait_event_interruptible is very much alike to 
wait_event_killable so I would assume it will also
not be interrupted if called like that. (Will give it a try just out of 
curiosity anyway)

Andrey

>
> I think this should be fixed in core code, not papered over in some
> subsystem.
> -Daniel
>
>>
>> -- 
>> Earthling Michel Dänzer               |               http://www.amd.com
>> Libre software enthusiast             |             Mesa and X developer
>> _______________________________________________
>> dri-devel mailing list
>> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel