Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm: mm always protect change to unused_nodes with unused_lock spinlock

[Jerome Glisse]

On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 09:42 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:56 AM, Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > unused_nodes modification needs to be protected by unused_lock spinlock.
> > Here is an example of an usage where there is no such protection without
> > this patch.
> >
> >  Process 1: 1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function modify unused_nodes list)
> >             2-spin_lock(spinlock protecting mm struct)
> >             3-drm_mm_put_block(this function might modify unused_nodes
> >               list but doesn't protect modification with unused_lock)
> >             4-spin_unlock(spinlock protecting mm struct)
> >  Process2:  1-drm_mm_pre_get(this function modify unused_nodes list)
> > At this point Process1 & Process2 might both be doing modification to
> > unused_nodes list. This patch add unused_lock protection into
> > drm_mm_put_block to avoid such issue.
> 
> Have we got a bug number or reproducer for this?
> 
> I've cc'ed Thomas and Chris who were last ppl to touch drm_mm.c for some
> sort of acks.
> 
> Dave.

No bug, this comes from code review while working on TTM. I think my
analysis is correct.

Cheers,
Jerome

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/