All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 13/13] drm/xe: add lockdep annotation for xe_device_mem_access_get()
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 11:50:51 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230626105037.43780-28-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230626105037.43780-15-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 needs to happen once and then lockdep
can validate all callers and their locks.

v2: (Thomas Hellström)
 - Prefer static lockdep_map instead of full blown mutex.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
index 1dc552da434f..923a23528da9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
@@ -35,6 +35,12 @@
 #include "xe_vm_madvise.h"
 #include "xe_wait_user_fence.h"
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
+static struct lockdep_map xe_device_mem_access_lockdep_map = {
+	.name = "xe_device_mem_access_lockdep_map"
+};
+#endif
+
 static int xe_file_open(struct drm_device *dev, struct drm_file *file)
 {
 	struct xe_file *xef;
@@ -443,6 +449,22 @@ 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_device_mem_access_lockdep_map);
+
 	if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&xe->mem_access.ref)) {
 		bool hold_rpm = xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get(xe);
 		int ref;
@@ -455,6 +477,8 @@ 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_device_mem_access_lockdep_map);
 }
 
 void xe_device_mem_access_put(struct xe_device *xe)
-- 
2.41.0


  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 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v12 01/13] drm/xe: fix xe_device_mem_access_get() races Matthew Auld
2023-06-30 15:22   ` 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 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
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=20230626105037.43780-28-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.