From: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 2/9] drm/xe: keep pulling mem_access_get further back
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 18:56:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230524175701.320653-2-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230524175701.320653-1-matthew.auld@intel.com>
Lockdep is unhappy about ggtt->lock -> runtime_pm, where it seems
to think this can somehow get inverted. The ggtt->lock looks like a
potentially sensitive driver lock, so likely a sensible move to never
call the runtime_pm routines while holding it. Actually it looks like
d3cold wants to grab this, so perhaps this can indeed deadlock.
v2:
- Don't forget about xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_vma(), which now needs
explicit access_get.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_fb_pin.c | 12 +++++++-----
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c | 6 ++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c | 10 ++++++----
3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_fb_pin.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_fb_pin.c
index c7c4df18e439..d140eee6473d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_fb_pin.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/display/xe_fb_pin.c
@@ -130,9 +130,10 @@ static int __xe_pin_fb_vma_ggtt(struct intel_framebuffer *fb,
/* TODO: Consider sharing framebuffer mapping?
* embed i915_vma inside intel_framebuffer
*/
+ xe_device_mem_access_get(ggtt->gt->xe);
ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&ggtt->lock);
if (ret)
- return ret;
+ goto out;
align = XE_PAGE_SIZE;
if (xe_bo_is_vram(bo) && ggtt->flags & XE_GGTT_FLAGS_64K)
@@ -146,7 +147,7 @@ static int __xe_pin_fb_vma_ggtt(struct intel_framebuffer *fb,
ret = xe_ggtt_insert_special_node_locked(ggtt, &vma->node, size,
align, 0);
if (ret)
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
for (x = 0; x < size; x += XE_PAGE_SIZE)
xe_ggtt_set_pte(ggtt, vma->node.start + x, xe_ggtt_pte_encode(bo, x));
@@ -160,7 +161,7 @@ static int __xe_pin_fb_vma_ggtt(struct intel_framebuffer *fb,
ret = xe_ggtt_insert_special_node_locked(ggtt, &vma->node, size,
align, 0);
if (ret)
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
ggtt_ofs = vma->node.start;
@@ -174,9 +175,10 @@ static int __xe_pin_fb_vma_ggtt(struct intel_framebuffer *fb,
}
xe_ggtt_invalidate(to_gt(xe));
-
-out:
+out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&ggtt->lock);
+out:
+ xe_device_mem_access_put(ggtt->gt->xe);
return ret;
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
index 546240261e0a..f986e8218820 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
@@ -142,12 +142,14 @@ static void xe_ggtt_initial_clear(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt)
u64 start, end;
/* Display may have allocated inside ggtt, so be careful with clearing here */
+ xe_device_mem_access_get(ggtt->gt->xe);
mutex_lock(&ggtt->lock);
drm_mm_for_each_hole(hole, &ggtt->mm, start, end)
xe_ggtt_clear(ggtt, start, end - start);
xe_ggtt_invalidate(ggtt->gt);
mutex_unlock(&ggtt->lock);
+ xe_device_mem_access_put(ggtt->gt->xe);
}
int xe_ggtt_init(struct xe_gt *gt, struct xe_ggtt *ggtt)
@@ -288,12 +290,14 @@ static int __xe_ggtt_insert_bo_at(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct xe_bo *bo,
if (err)
return err;
+ xe_device_mem_access_get(ggtt->gt->xe);
mutex_lock(&ggtt->lock);
err = drm_mm_insert_node_in_range(&ggtt->mm, &bo->ggtt_node, bo->size,
alignment, 0, start, end, 0);
if (!err)
xe_ggtt_map_bo(ggtt, bo);
mutex_unlock(&ggtt->lock);
+ xe_device_mem_access_put(ggtt->gt->xe);
return err;
}
@@ -311,6 +315,7 @@ int xe_ggtt_insert_bo(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct xe_bo *bo)
void xe_ggtt_remove_node(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct drm_mm_node *node)
{
+ xe_device_mem_access_get(ggtt->gt->xe);
mutex_lock(&ggtt->lock);
xe_ggtt_clear(ggtt, node->start, node->size);
@@ -320,6 +325,7 @@ void xe_ggtt_remove_node(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct drm_mm_node *node)
xe_ggtt_invalidate(ggtt->gt);
mutex_unlock(&ggtt->lock);
+ xe_device_mem_access_put(ggtt->gt->xe);
}
void xe_ggtt_remove_bo(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct xe_bo *bo)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
index 20f8f0aae6b4..44e442bf306c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
@@ -114,7 +114,6 @@ static int send_tlb_invalidation(struct xe_guc *guc,
* need to be updated.
*/
- xe_device_mem_access_get(gt->xe);
mutex_lock(&guc->ct.lock);
seqno = gt->tlb_invalidation.seqno;
if (fence) {
@@ -143,7 +142,6 @@ static int send_tlb_invalidation(struct xe_guc *guc,
if (ret < 0 && fence)
invalidation_fence_signal(fence);
mutex_unlock(&guc->ct.lock);
- xe_device_mem_access_put(gt->xe);
return ret;
}
@@ -196,7 +194,7 @@ int xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_vma(struct xe_gt *gt,
struct xe_device *xe = gt_to_xe(gt);
#define MAX_TLB_INVALIDATION_LEN 7
u32 action[MAX_TLB_INVALIDATION_LEN];
- int len = 0;
+ int len = 0, ret;
XE_BUG_ON(!vma);
@@ -250,7 +248,11 @@ int xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_vma(struct xe_gt *gt,
XE_BUG_ON(len > MAX_TLB_INVALIDATION_LEN);
- return send_tlb_invalidation(>->uc.guc, fence, action, len);
+ xe_device_mem_access_get(gt->xe);
+ ret = send_tlb_invalidation(>->uc.guc, fence, action, len);
+ xe_device_mem_access_put(gt->xe);
+
+ return ret;
}
static bool tlb_invalidation_seqno_past(struct xe_gt *gt, int seqno)
--
2.40.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-24 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-24 17:56 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 1/9] drm/xe: don't allocate under ct->lock Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 3/9] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from guc_ct_send Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 19:33 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 4/9] drm/xe/ggtt: prime ggtt->lock against FS_RECLAIM Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 5/9] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from invalidation_vma Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 6/9] drm/xe: fix xe_device_mem_access_get() races Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 7/9] drm/xe/vm: tidy up xe_runtime_pm usage Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 19:30 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-24 17:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 8/9] drm/xe: add lockdep annotation for xe_device_mem_access_get() Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 9/9] drm/xe/debugfs: grab mem_access around forcewake Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 19:32 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-24 18:33 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [v10,1/9] drm/xe: don't allocate under ct->lock Patchwork
2023-05-24 18:34 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2023-05-24 18:38 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-05-24 19:14 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " Patchwork
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=20230524175701.320653-2-matthew.auld@intel.com \
--to=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.