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 8/9] drm/xe: add lockdep annotation for xe_device_mem_access_get()
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 18:57:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230524175701.320653-8-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230524175701.320653-1-matthew.auld@intel.com>
The atomics here might hide potential issues, so add a dummy lock with
the idea that xe_pm_runtime_resume() is eventually going to be called
when we are holding it. This only need to happen once and then lockdep
can validate all callers and their locks.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
index 695419a64ec0..2e246d7c2ba2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
@@ -224,6 +224,8 @@ struct xe_device *xe_device_create(struct pci_dev *pdev,
if (WARN_ON(err))
goto err_put;
+ drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->mem_access.lock);
+
return xe;
err_put:
@@ -436,6 +438,22 @@ void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe)
if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current)
return;
+ /*
+ * Since the resume here is synchronous it can be quite easy to deadlock
+ * if we are not careful. Also in practice it might be quite timing
+ * sensitive to ever see the 0 -> 1 transition with the callers locks
+ * held, so deadlocks might exist but are hard for lockdep to ever see.
+ * With this in mind, help lockdep learn about the potentially scary
+ * stuff that can happen inside the runtime_resume callback by acquiring
+ * a dummy lock (it doesn't protect anything and gets compiled out on
+ * non-debug builds). Lockdep then only needs to see the
+ * mem_access.lock -> runtime_resume callback once, and then can
+ * hopefully validate all the (callers_locks) -> mem_access.lock. For
+ * example if the (callers_locks) are ever grabbed in the runtime_resume
+ * callback, lockdep should give us a nice splat.
+ */
+ lock_map_acquire(&xe->mem_access.lock.dep_map);
+
if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&xe->mem_access.ref)) {
bool hold_rpm = xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get(xe);
int ref;
@@ -448,6 +466,8 @@ void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe)
} else {
XE_WARN_ON(atomic_read(&xe->mem_access.ref) == S32_MAX);
}
+
+ lock_map_release(&xe->mem_access.lock.dep_map);
}
void xe_device_mem_access_put(struct xe_device *xe)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
index 9e79857c267c..fa33b3093dba 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
@@ -260,6 +260,14 @@ struct xe_device {
* triggering additional actions when they occur.
*/
struct {
+ /**
+ * @lock: Dummy lock used as lockdep aid to hopefully ensure
+ * that lockep can more easily see any potential deadlocks when
+ * calling xe_device_mem_access_get().
+ *
+ * Doesn't protect anything.
+ */
+ struct mutex lock;
/** @ref: ref count of memory accesses */
atomic_t ref;
/** @hold_rpm: need to put rpm ref back at the end */
--
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 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 2/9] drm/xe: keep pulling mem_access_get further back Matthew Auld
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 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
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=20230524175701.320653-8-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.