lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [Linaro-mm-sig] Re: [PATCH] dma-fence: allow dma fence to have their own lock
From
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.

Regards,
Christian.

> _______________________________________________
> Linaro-mm-sig mailing list -- linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-mm-sig-leave@lists.linaro.org

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-01 14:47    [W:0.124 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site