From: "Gary Guo" <gary@garyguo.net>
To: "Philipp Stanner" <phasta@kernel.org>,
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>,
"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
"David Airlie" <airlied@gmail.com>,
"Simona Vetter" <simona@ffwll.ch>,
"Sumit Semwal" <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Tvrtko Ursulin" <tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com>,
"Boris Brezillon" <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
Cc: <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"dri-devel" <dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dma-buf/dma_fence: Make races for dma_fence_is_signaled() less likely
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2026 10:56:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DJ9J7LOD4NKC.LUC2DF5MC5ZQ@garyguo.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260612104251.2264707-2-phasta@kernel.org>
On Fri Jun 12, 2026 at 11:42 AM BST, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> dma_fence_is_signaled() returns whether a fence has been signaled
> already. That function contains a fast path opportunistic check which is
> not guarded by the lock and, according to Christian, cannot be guarded
> by the lock without causing a massive performance regression.
>
> This now means that dma_fence_is_signaled() can return true WHILE the
> fence callbacks are still being executed. This is razy and has lead to
> at least one bug solved in:
>
> commit c8a5d5ea3ba6 ("nouveau: fix client work fence deletion race")
>
> Make this race impossible, by simply setting the bit only once the
> callbacks are actually completed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <phasta@kernel.org>
> ---
> drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> index c7ea1e75d38a..2416cc86ce93 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> @@ -359,8 +359,19 @@ void dma_fence_signal_timestamp_locked(struct dma_fence *fence,
>
> dma_fence_assert_held(fence);
>
> - if (unlikely(test_and_set_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT,
> - &fence->flags)))
> + /*
> + * First test the bit, so we don't signal an already signaled fence again.
> + * The lock protects against multiple parties setting the bit. The bit
> + * is then set at the end of the function.
> + *
> + * The background is that there is a fast path check in
> + * dma_fence_is_signaled() which does not use lock protection and can
> + * return true *while* the fence callbacks are still executing.
> + *
> + * This fast path check supposedly cannot be guarded by the lock because
> + * of significant performance regressions.
> + */
> + if (unlikely(test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, &fence->flags)))
> return;
>
> trace_dma_fence_signaled(fence);
> @@ -384,6 +395,9 @@ void dma_fence_signal_timestamp_locked(struct dma_fence *fence,
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cur->node);
> cur->func(fence, cur);
> }
> +
> + // TODO: we need some barrier here, don't we?
You want a release barrier here, which we don't have currently, but you can use
`smp_mb__before_atomic`.
However note that barriers must be paired, so in order for the added barrier to
do anything, dma_fence_is_signaled lockless fast path would need to have an
acquire barrier, which we also don't have, so you need a `smp_mb()` there after
the flag test.
Best,
Gary
> + set_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, &fence->flags);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_signal_timestamp_locked);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-15 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-12 10:42 Philipp Stanner
2026-06-15 9:53 ` Christian König
2026-06-15 10:04 ` Philipp Stanner
2026-06-15 10:09 ` Christian König
2026-06-15 10:36 ` Philipp Stanner
2026-06-15 9:56 ` Gary Guo [this message]
2026-06-15 14:16 ` Philipp Stanner
2026-06-15 11:11 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
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=DJ9J7LOD4NKC.LUC2DF5MC5ZQ@garyguo.net \
--to=gary@garyguo.net \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
--cc=phasta@kernel.org \
--cc=simona@ffwll.ch \
--cc=sumit.semwal@linaro.org \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®