From: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 01/13] drm/xe: fix xe_device_mem_access_get() races
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:50:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230626105037.43780-16-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230626105037.43780-15-matthew.auld@intel.com>
It looks like there is at least one race here, given that the
pm_runtime_suspended() check looks to return false if we are in the
process of suspending the device (RPM_SUSPENDING vs RPM_SUSPENDED). We
later also do xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(), but since the device is
suspending or has now suspended, this doesn't do anything either.
Following from this we can potentially return from
xe_device_mem_access_get() with the device suspended or about to be,
leading to broken behaviour.
Attempt to fix this by always grabbing the runtime ref when our internal
ref transitions from 0 -> 1. The hard part is then dealing with the
runtime_pm callbacks also calling xe_device_mem_access_get() and
deadlocking, which the pm_runtime_suspended() check prevented.
v2:
- ct->lock looks to be primed with fs_reclaim, so holding that and then
allocating memory will cause lockdep to complain. Now that we
unconditionally grab the mem_access.lock around mem_access_{get,put}, we
need to change the ordering wrt to grabbing the ct->lock, since some of
the runtime_pm routines can allocate memory (or at least that's what
lockdep seems to suggest). Hopefully not a big deal. It might be that
there were already issues with this, just that the atomics where
"hiding" the potential issues.
v3:
- Use Thomas Hellström' idea with tracking the active task that is
executing in the resume or suspend callback, in order to avoid
recursive resume/suspend calls deadlocking on itself.
- Split the ct->lock change.
v4:
- Add smb_mb() around accessing the pm_callback_task for extra safety.
(Thomas Hellström)
v5:
- Clarify the kernel-doc for the mem_access.lock, given that it is quite
strange in what it protects (data vs code). The real motivation is to
aid lockdep. (Rodrigo Vivi)
v6:
- Split out the lock change. We still want this as a lockdep aid but
only for the xe_device_mem_access_get() path. Sticking a lock on the
put() looks be a no-go, also the runtime_put() there is always async.
- Now that the lock is gone move to atomics and rely on the pm code
serialising multiple callers on the 0 -> 1 transition.
- g2h_worker_func() looks to be the next issue, given that
suspend-resume callbacks are using CT, so try to handle that.
v7:
- Add xe_device_mem_access_get_if_ongoing(), and use it in
g2h_worker_func().
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/258
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Cc: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++-----
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h | 12 ++---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 6 +++
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c | 34 +++++++++++++-
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++---------
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h | 3 +-
6 files changed, 134 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
index c7985af85a53..1dc552da434f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
@@ -411,27 +411,61 @@ u32 xe_device_ccs_bytes(struct xe_device *xe, u64 size)
DIV_ROUND_UP(size, NUM_BYTES_PER_CCS_BYTE) : 0;
}
+bool xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(struct xe_device *xe)
+{
+ if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) != NULL)
+ return true;
+
+ return atomic_read(&xe->mem_access.ref);
+}
+
+void xe_device_assert_mem_access(struct xe_device *xe)
+{
+ XE_WARN_ON(!xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(xe));
+}
+
+bool xe_device_mem_access_get_if_ongoing(struct xe_device *xe)
+{
+ return atomic_inc_not_zero(&xe->mem_access.ref);
+}
+
void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe)
{
- bool resumed = xe_pm_runtime_resume_if_suspended(xe);
- int ref = atomic_inc_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
+ /*
+ * This looks racy, but should be fine since the pm_callback_task only
+ * transitions from NULL -> current (and back to NULL again), during the
+ * runtime_resume() or runtime_suspend() callbacks, for which there can
+ * only be a single one running for our device. We only need to prevent
+ * recursively calling the runtime_get or runtime_put from those
+ * callbacks, as well as preventing triggering any access_ongoing
+ * asserts.
+ */
+ if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current)
+ return;
- if (ref == 1)
- xe->mem_access.hold_rpm = xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(xe);
+ if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&xe->mem_access.ref)) {
+ bool hold_rpm = xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get(xe);
+ int ref;
- /* The usage counter increased if device was immediately resumed */
- if (resumed)
- xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
-
- XE_WARN_ON(ref == S32_MAX);
+ ref = atomic_inc_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
+ if (ref == 1)
+ xe->mem_access.hold_rpm = hold_rpm;
+ else
+ xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
+ } else {
+ XE_WARN_ON(atomic_read(&xe->mem_access.ref) == S32_MAX);
+ }
}
void xe_device_mem_access_put(struct xe_device *xe)
{
- bool hold = xe->mem_access.hold_rpm;
- int ref = atomic_dec_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
+ int ref;
- if (!ref && hold)
+ if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current)
+ return;
+
+ ref = atomic_dec_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
+ if (ref == 0 && xe->mem_access.hold_rpm)
xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
XE_WARN_ON(ref < 0);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h
index 779f71d066e6..0ce0351d7d23 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h
@@ -138,17 +138,11 @@ static inline struct xe_force_wake * gt_to_fw(struct xe_gt *gt)
}
void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe);
+bool xe_device_mem_access_get_if_ongoing(struct xe_device *xe);
void xe_device_mem_access_put(struct xe_device *xe);
-static inline bool xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(struct xe_device *xe)
-{
- return atomic_read(&xe->mem_access.ref);
-}
-
-static inline void xe_device_assert_mem_access(struct xe_device *xe)
-{
- XE_WARN_ON(!xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(xe));
-}
+void xe_device_assert_mem_access(struct xe_device *xe);
+bool xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(struct xe_device *xe);
static inline bool xe_device_in_fault_mode(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 0226d44a6af2..a39f3d3f3bc7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
@@ -329,6 +329,12 @@ struct xe_device {
bool hold_rpm;
} mem_access;
+ /**
+ * @pm_callback_task: Track the active task that is running in either
+ * the runtime_suspend or runtime_resume callbacks.
+ */
+ struct task_struct *pm_callback_task;
+
/** @d3cold_allowed: Indicates if d3cold is a valid device state */
bool d3cold_allowed;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c
index 22bc9ce846db..421bb72b2868 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c
@@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
#include "xe_guc.h"
#include "xe_guc_submit.h"
#include "xe_map.h"
+#include "xe_pm.h"
#include "xe_trace.h"
/* Used when a CT send wants to block and / or receive data */
@@ -1078,9 +1079,36 @@ static int dequeue_one_g2h(struct xe_guc_ct *ct)
static void g2h_worker_func(struct work_struct *w)
{
struct xe_guc_ct *ct = container_of(w, struct xe_guc_ct, g2h_worker);
+ bool ongoing;
int ret;
- xe_device_mem_access_get(ct_to_xe(ct));
+ /*
+ * Normal users must always hold mem_access.ref around CT calls. However
+ * during the runtime pm callbacks we rely on CT to talk to the GuC, but
+ * at this stage we can't rely on mem_access.ref and even the
+ * callback_task will be different than current. For such cases we just
+ * need to ensure we always process the responses from any blocking
+ * ct_send requests or where we otherwise expect some response when
+ * initiated from those callbacks (which will need to wait for the below
+ * dequeue_one_g2h()). The dequeue_one_g2h() will gracefully fail if
+ * the device has suspended to the point that the CT communication has
+ * been disabled.
+ *
+ * If we are inside the runtime pm callback, we can be the only task
+ * still issuing CT requests (since that requires having the
+ * mem_access.ref). It seems like it might in theory be possible to
+ * receive unsolicited events from the GuC just as we are
+ * suspending-resuming, but those will currently anyway be lost when
+ * eventually exiting from suspend, hence no need to wake up the device
+ * here. If we ever need something stronger than get_if_ongoing() then
+ * we need to be careful with blocking the pm callbacks from getting CT
+ * responses, if the worker here is blocked on those callbacks
+ * completing, creating a deadlock.
+ */
+ ongoing = xe_device_mem_access_get_if_ongoing(ct_to_xe(ct));
+ if (!ongoing && xe_pm_read_callback_task(ct_to_xe(ct)) == NULL)
+ return;
+
do {
mutex_lock(&ct->lock);
ret = dequeue_one_g2h(ct);
@@ -1094,7 +1122,9 @@ static void g2h_worker_func(struct work_struct *w)
kick_reset(ct);
}
} while (ret == 1);
- xe_device_mem_access_put(ct_to_xe(ct));
+
+ if (ongoing)
+ xe_device_mem_access_put(ct_to_xe(ct));
}
static void guc_ctb_snapshot_capture(struct xe_device *xe, struct guc_ctb *ctb,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
index b7b57f10ba25..29c8861e58a5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
@@ -137,43 +137,71 @@ void xe_pm_runtime_fini(struct xe_device *xe)
pm_runtime_forbid(dev);
}
+static void xe_pm_write_callback_task(struct xe_device *xe,
+ struct task_struct *task)
+{
+ WRITE_ONCE(xe->pm_callback_task, task);
+
+ /*
+ * Just in case it's somehow possible for our writes to be reordered to
+ * the extent that something else re-uses the task written in
+ * pm_callback_task. For example after returning from the callback, but
+ * before the reordered write that resets pm_callback_task back to NULL.
+ */
+ smp_mb(); /* pairs with xe_pm_read_callback_task */
+}
+
+struct task_struct *xe_pm_read_callback_task(struct xe_device *xe)
+{
+ smp_mb(); /* pairs with xe_pm_write_callback_task */
+
+ return READ_ONCE(xe->pm_callback_task);
+}
+
int xe_pm_runtime_suspend(struct xe_device *xe)
{
struct xe_gt *gt;
u8 id;
- int err;
+ int err = 0;
+
+ if (xe->d3cold_allowed && xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(xe))
+ return -EBUSY;
+
+ /* Disable access_ongoing asserts and prevent recursive pm calls */
+ xe_pm_write_callback_task(xe, current);
if (xe->d3cold_allowed) {
- if (xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(xe))
- return -EBUSY;
-
err = xe_bo_evict_all(xe);
if (err)
- return err;
+ goto out;
}
for_each_gt(gt, xe, id) {
err = xe_gt_suspend(gt);
if (err)
- return err;
+ goto out;
}
xe_irq_suspend(xe);
-
- return 0;
+out:
+ xe_pm_write_callback_task(xe, NULL);
+ return err;
}
int xe_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
{
struct xe_gt *gt;
u8 id;
- int err;
+ int err = 0;
+
+ /* Disable access_ongoing asserts and prevent recursive pm calls */
+ xe_pm_write_callback_task(xe, current);
if (xe->d3cold_allowed) {
for_each_gt(gt, xe, id) {
err = xe_pcode_init(gt);
if (err)
- return err;
+ goto out;
}
/*
@@ -182,7 +210,7 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
*/
err = xe_bo_restore_kernel(xe);
if (err)
- return err;
+ goto out;
}
xe_irq_resume(xe);
@@ -193,10 +221,11 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
if (xe->d3cold_allowed) {
err = xe_bo_restore_user(xe);
if (err)
- return err;
+ goto out;
}
-
- return 0;
+out:
+ xe_pm_write_callback_task(xe, NULL);
+ return err;
}
int xe_pm_runtime_get(struct xe_device *xe)
@@ -210,14 +239,9 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_put(struct xe_device *xe)
return pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(xe->drm.dev);
}
-/* Return true if resume operation happened and usage count was increased */
-bool xe_pm_runtime_resume_if_suspended(struct xe_device *xe)
+bool xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get(struct xe_device *xe)
{
- /* In case we are suspended we need to immediately wake up */
- if (pm_runtime_suspended(xe->drm.dev))
- return !pm_runtime_resume_and_get(xe->drm.dev);
-
- return false;
+ return !pm_runtime_resume_and_get(xe->drm.dev);
}
int xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(struct xe_device *xe)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h
index 6a885585f653..e92c508d44b9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h
@@ -19,7 +19,8 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_suspend(struct xe_device *xe);
int xe_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe);
int xe_pm_runtime_get(struct xe_device *xe);
int xe_pm_runtime_put(struct xe_device *xe);
-bool xe_pm_runtime_resume_if_suspended(struct xe_device *xe);
+bool xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get(struct xe_device *xe);
int xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(struct xe_device *xe);
+struct task_struct *xe_pm_read_callback_task(struct xe_device *xe);
#endif
--
2.41.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-26 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-26 10:50 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 00/13] xe_device_mem_access fixes and related bits Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
2023-06-30 15:22 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 01/13] drm/xe: fix xe_device_mem_access_get() races Gupta, Anshuman
2023-07-04 11:25 ` Matthew Auld
2023-07-04 15:29 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2023-07-04 16:00 ` Matthew Auld
2023-07-11 9:00 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2023-07-11 11:06 ` Matthew Auld
2023-07-11 17:56 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 02/13] drm/xe/vm: tidy up xe_runtime_pm usage Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 03/13] drm/xe/debugfs: grab mem_access around forcewake Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 04/13] drm/xe/guc_pc: add missing mem_access for freq_rpe_show Matthew Auld
2023-06-27 6:53 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2023-06-27 8:20 ` Matthew Auld
2023-06-27 10:14 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 05/13] drm/xe/mmio: grab mem_access in xe_mmio_ioctl Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 06/13] drm/xe: ensure correct access_put ordering Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 07/13] drm/xe/pci: wrap probe with mem_access Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 08/13] drm/xe/display: use mem_access underneath Matthew Auld
2023-06-28 9:51 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2023-06-29 9:19 ` Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 09/13] drm/xe/mmio: enforce xe_device_assert_mem_access Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 10/13] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from guc_ct_send Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 11/13] drm/xe/ggtt: prime ggtt->lock against FS_RECLAIM Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 12/13] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from invalidation_vma Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 10:50 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 13/13] drm/xe: add lockdep annotation for xe_device_mem_access_get() Matthew Auld
2023-06-26 12:55 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for xe_device_mem_access fixes and related bits (rev2) Patchwork
2023-06-26 12:56 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2023-06-26 12:57 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2023-06-26 13:01 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-06-26 13:01 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2023-06-26 13:02 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2023-06-26 13:46 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " Patchwork
2023-06-30 6:21 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 00/13] xe_device_mem_access fixes and related bits Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-06-30 11:07 ` Matthew Auld
2023-06-30 16:59 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
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=20230626105037.43780-16-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.