Re: [RFC 01/17] dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait()

[Maarten Lankhorst]

Op 12-05-2020 om 11:08 schreef Christian KÃnig:
> Am 12.05.20 um 10:59 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>> But only for non-zero timeout, to avoid false positives.
>>
>> One question here is whether the might_sleep should be unconditional,
>> or only for real timeouts. I'm not sure, so went with the more
>> defensive option. But in the interest of locking down the cross-driver
>> dma_fence rules we might want to be more aggressive.
>>
>> Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Christian KÃnig <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Â drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 3 +++
>> Â 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
>> index 052a41e2451c..6802125349fb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
>> @@ -208,6 +208,9 @@ dma_fence_wait_timeout(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout)
>> ÂÂÂÂÂ if (WARN_ON(timeout < 0))
>> ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return -EINVAL;
>> Â +ÂÂÂ if (timeout > 0)
>> +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ might_sleep();
>> +
>
> I would rather like to see might_sleep() called here all the time even with timeout==0.
>
> IIRC I removed the code in TTM abusing this in atomic context quite a while ago, but could be that some leaked in again or it is called in atomic context elsewhere as well. 


Same, glad I'm not the only one who wants it. :)

~Maarten