Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-166416-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 13:59:41 +0200
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To: Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QWRyacOhbg==?= Larumbe <adrian.larumbe@collabora.com>, Qiang
 Yu <yuq825@gmail.com>, Maarten Lankhorst
 <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>, Rob
 Herring <robh@kernel.org>, Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>, Sumit
 Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>, Christian Koenig=
 <christian.koenig@amd.com>, Dmitry Osipenko
 <dmitry.osipenko@collabora.com>, Zack Rusin <zack.rusin@broadcom.com>,
 kernel@collabora.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
 lima@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] drm: Fix dma_resv deadlock at drm object pin
 time
Message-ID: <20240502135941.136ad639@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <84a5f7b6-d20a-4c69-83a8-d8394fea2b68@suse.de>
References: <20240501065650.2809530-1-adrian.larumbe@collabora.com>
	<84a5f7b6-d20a-4c69-83a8-d8394fea2b68@suse.de>
Organization: Collabora
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Thomas,

On Thu, 2 May 2024 13:51:16 +0200
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> ignoring my r-b on patch 1, I'd like to rethink the current patches in 
> general.
> 
> I think drm_gem_shmem_pin() should become the locked version of _pin(), 
> so that drm_gem_shmem_object_pin() can call it directly. The existing 
> _pin_unlocked() would not be needed any longer. Same for the _unpin() 
> functions. This change would also fix the consistency with the semantics 
> of the shmem _vmap() functions, which never take reservation locks.
> 
> There are only two external callers of drm_gem_shmem_pin(): the test 
> case and panthor. These assume that drm_gem_shmem_pin() acquires the 
> reservation lock. The test case should likely call drm_gem_pin() 
> instead. That would acquire the reservation lock and the test would 
> validate that shmem's pin helper integrates well into the overall GEM 
> framework. The way panthor uses drm_gem_shmem_pin() looks wrong to me. 
> For now, it could receive a wrapper that takes the lock and that's it.

I do agree that the current inconsistencies in the naming is
troublesome (sometimes _unlocked, sometimes _locked, with the version
without any suffix meaning either _locked or _unlocked depending on
what the suffixed version does), and that's the very reason I asked
Dmitry to address that in his shrinker series [1]. So, ideally I'd
prefer if patches from Dmitry's series were applied instead of
trying to fix that here (IIRC, we had an ack from Maxime).

Regards,

Boris