LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Cc: maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, mripard@kernel.org,
	tzimmermann@suse.de, airlied@linux.ie, daniel@ffwll.ch,
	peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, will@kernel.org,
	longman@redhat.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: add lockdep assert to drm_is_current_master_locked
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 16:06:44 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <35518f4b-5e4a-b284-1f86-5cba64941211@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YQOXTW8kSHdNjhiY@boqun-archlinux>

On 30/7/21 2:08 pm, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:15:15PM +0800, Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi wrote:
>> In drm_is_current_master_locked, accessing drm_file.master should be
>> protected by either drm_file.master_lookup_lock or
>> drm_device.master_mutex. This was previously awkward to assert with
>> lockdep.
>>
>> Following patch ("locking/lockdep: Provide lockdep_assert{,_once}()
>> helpers"), this assertion is now convenient so we add it in.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi <desmondcheongzx@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c | 6 +++---
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c
>> index 9c24b8cc8e36..6f4d7ff23c80 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_auth.c
>> @@ -63,9 +63,9 @@
>>   
>>   static bool drm_is_current_master_locked(struct drm_file *fpriv)
>>   {
>> -	/* Either drm_device.master_mutex or drm_file.master_lookup_lock
>> -	 * should be held here.
>> -	 */
>> +	lockdep_assert_once(lockdep_is_held(&fpriv->master_lookup_lock) ||
>> +			    lockdep_is_held(&fpriv->minor->dev->master_mutex));
>> +
> 
> I think it's better to also add the lockdep_assert() of & (i.e. both
> held) in the updater side, and have comments pointing to each other.
> 
> Is it convenient to do in this patchset? If the updater side doesn't
> need to put the lockdep_assert() (maybe the lock acquire code and the
> update code are in the same function), it's still better to add some

Thanks for the feedback, Boqun.

Yeah, I think the updater side maybe doesn't need new lockdep_assert()
because what currently happens is either

	lockdep_assert_held_once(&dev->master_mutex);
	/* 6 lines of prep */
	spin_lock(&fpriv->master_lookup_lock);
	fpriv->master = new_value;
or
	mutex_lock(&dev->master_mutex);
	/* 3 lines of checks */
		spin_lock(&file_priv->master_lookup_lock);
		file_priv->master = new_value;

> comments like:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * To update drm_file.master, both drm_file.master_lookup_lock
> 	 * and drm_device.master_mutex are needed, therefore holding
> 	 * either of them is safe and enough for the read side.
> 	 */
> 
> Just feel it's better to explain the lock design either in the
> lockdep_assert() or comments.
> 

But clarifying the lock design in the documentation sounds like a really
good idea.

Probably a good place for this would be in the kerneldoc where we also
explain the lifetime rules and usage of the pointer outside drm_auth.c:

diff --git a/include/drm/drm_file.h b/include/drm/drm_file.h
index 726cfe0ff5f5..a3acb7ac3550 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_file.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_file.h
@@ -233,6 +233,10 @@ struct drm_file {
  	 * this only matches &drm_device.master if the master is the currently
  	 * active one.
  	 *
+	 * To update @master, both &drm_device.master_mutex and
+	 * @master_lookup_lock need to be held, therefore holding either of
+	 * them is safe and enough for the read side.
+	 *
  	 * When dereferencing this pointer, either hold struct
  	 * &drm_device.master_mutex for the duration of the pointer's use, or
  	 * use drm_file_get_master() if struct &drm_device.master_mutex is not

Best wishes,
Desmond

> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
>>   	return fpriv->is_master && drm_lease_owner(fpriv->master) == fpriv->minor->dev->master;
>>   }
>>   
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>


  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-30  8:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-30  4:15 [PATCH 0/2] locking/lockdep, drm: apply new lockdep assert in drm_auth.c Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
2021-07-30  4:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] locking/lockdep: Provide lockdep_assert{,_once}() helpers Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
2021-07-30  4:15 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm: add lockdep assert to drm_is_current_master_locked Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi
2021-07-30  6:08   ` Boqun Feng
2021-07-30  8:06     ` Desmond Cheong Zhi Xi [this message]
2021-07-30  9:48       ` Boqun Feng
2021-07-30 17:37 ` [PATCH 0/2] locking/lockdep, drm: apply new lockdep assert in drm_auth.c Waiman Long

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=35518f4b-5e4a-b284-1f86-5cba64941211@gmail.com \
    --to=desmondcheongzx@gmail.com \
    --cc=airlied@linux.ie \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=longman@redhat.com \
    --cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mripard@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: add lockdep assert to drm_is_current_master_locked' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).