Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <ab42ca92-70e3-ec82-c52c-0fc41d5b4a53@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jun 2022 15:52:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.9.1
Subject: Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] Re: [PATCH] dma-fence: allow dma fence to have
 their own lock
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
        Ricardo Ribalda <ribalda@chromium.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220530142232.2871634-1-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
 <7eee4274-bd69-df8d-9067-771366217804@amd.com> <YpWCvniLzJfcp684@google.com>
 <33aba213-b6ad-4a15-9272-c62f5dfb1fb7@gmail.com>
 <YpdoEzLmlBfJks3q@phenom.ffwll.local>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=c3=b6nig?= <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YpdoEzLmlBfJks3q@phenom.ffwll.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Am 01.06.22 um 15:22 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 02:45:42PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 31.05.22 um 04:51 schrieb Sergey Senozhatsky:
>>> On (22/05/30 16:55), Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 30.05.22 um 16:22 schrieb Sergey Senozhatsky:
>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>> So the `lock` should have at least same lifespan as the DMA fence
>>>>> that borrows it, which is impossible to guarantee in our case.
>>>> Nope, that's not correct. The lock should have at least same lifespan as the
>>>> context of the DMA fence.
>>> How does one know when it's safe to release the context? DMA fence
>>> objects are still transparently refcount-ed and "live their own lives",
>>> how does one synchronize lifespans?
>> Well, you don't.
>>
>> If you have a dynamic context structure you need to reference count that as
>> well. In other words every time you create a fence in your context you need
>> to increment the reference count and every time a fence is release you
>> decrement it.
>>
>> If you have a static context structure like most drivers have then you must
>> make sure that all fences at least signal before you unload your driver. We
>> still somewhat have a race when you try to unload a driver and the fence_ops
>> structure suddenly disappear, but we currently live with that.
>>
>> Apart from that you are right, fences can live forever and we need to deal
>> with that.
> Yeah this entire thing is a bit an "oops we might have screwed up" moment.
> I think the cleanest way is to essentially do what the drm/sched codes
> does, which is split the gpu job into the public dma_fence (which can live
> forever) and the internal job fence (which has to deal with all the
> resource refcounting issues). And then make sure that only ever the public
> fence escapes to places where the fence can live forever (dma_resv,
> drm_syncobj, sync_file as our uapi container objects are the prominent
> cases really).
>
> It sucks a bit.

It's actually not that bad.

See after signaling the dma_fence_ops is mostly used for debugging I 
think, e.g. timeline name etc...

Christian.

> -Daniel