On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 21:46:09 +0300
Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipe...@collabora.com> wrote:
> All drivers will be moved to get/put pages explicitly and then the last
> put_pages() will be invoked during gem_free() time by some drivers.
> We can't touch reservation lock when GEM is freed because that will cause
> a spurious warning from lockdep when shrinker support will be added.
> Lockdep doesn't know that fs_reclaim isn't functioning for a freed object,
> and thus, can't deadlock. Release pages directly without taking reservation
> lock if GEM is freed and its refcount is zero.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipe...@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@collabora.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> index f5ed64f78648..c7357110ca76 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c
> @@ -242,6 +242,22 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_put_pages(struct drm_gem_shmem_object
> *shmem)
> if (refcount_dec_not_one(&shmem->pages_use_count))
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * Destroying the object is a special case because acquiring
> + * the obj lock can cause a locking order inversion between
> + * reservation_ww_class_mutex and fs_reclaim.
> + *
> + * This deadlock is not actually possible, because no one should
> + * be already holding the lock when GEM is released. Unfortunately
> + * lockdep is not aware of this detail. So when the refcount drops
> + * to zero, we pretend it is already locked.
> + */
> + if (!kref_read(&shmem->base.refcount)) {
> + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&shmem->pages_use_count))
> + drm_gem_shmem_free_pages(shmem);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> dma_resv_lock(shmem->base.resv, NULL);
> drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked(shmem);
> dma_resv_unlock(shmem->base.resv);
