From: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 09/10] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from invalidation_vma
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:38:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230719083801.182123-21-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230719083801.182123-12-matthew.auld@intel.com>
Lockdep gives the following splat:
[ 594.158863] ffff888140da53f0 (&vm->userptr.notifier_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: vma_userptr_invalidate+0xeb/0x330 [xe]
[ 594.158921]
but task is already holding lock:
[ 594.158926] ffffffff82761940
(mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: unmap_vmas+0x0/0x1c0
[ 594.158941]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 594.158947]
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 594.158953]
-> #5 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}:
[ 594.158961] fs_reclaim_acquire+0x68/0xd0
[ 594.158969] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x2c/0x1b0
[ 594.158975] kmalloc_node_trace+0x1d/0xb0
[ 594.158983] alloc_worker+0x18/0x50
[ 594.158989] init_rescuer.part.0+0x13/0xa0
[ 594.158995] workqueue_init+0xdf/0x210
[ 594.159001] kernel_init_freeable+0x5c/0x2f0
[ 594.159009] kernel_init+0x11/0x1a0
[ 594.159017] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
[ 594.159023]
-> #4 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
[ 594.159031] fs_reclaim_acquire+0xa0/0xd0
[ 594.159037] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x2c/0x1b0
[ 594.159042] kmalloc_trace+0x20/0xb0
[ 594.159048] acpi_device_add+0x25a/0x3f0
[ 594.159056] acpi_add_single_object+0x387/0x750
[ 594.159063] acpi_bus_check_add+0x108/0x280
[ 594.159069] acpi_bus_scan+0x34/0xf0
[ 594.159075] acpi_scan_init+0xed/0x2b0
[ 594.159082] acpi_init+0x21e/0x520
[ 594.159087] do_one_initcall+0x53/0x260
[ 594.159092] kernel_init_freeable+0x18a/0x2f0
[ 594.159099] kernel_init+0x11/0x1a0
[ 594.159105] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
[ 594.159110]
-> #3 (acpi_device_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 594.159117] __mutex_lock+0x95/0xd10
[ 594.159122] acpi_enable_wakeup_device_power+0x30/0x120
[ 594.159130] __acpi_device_wakeup_enable+0x34/0x110
[ 594.159138] acpi_pm_set_device_wakeup+0x55/0x140
[ 594.159143] __pci_enable_wake+0x56/0xb0
[ 594.159150] pci_finish_runtime_suspend+0x35/0x80
[ 594.159157] pci_pm_runtime_suspend+0xb5/0x1a0
[ 594.159162] __rpm_callback+0x3c/0x110
[ 594.159170] rpm_callback+0x58/0x70
[ 594.159176] rpm_suspend+0x15c/0x6f0
[ 594.159182] pm_runtime_work+0x9b/0xb0
[ 594.159188] process_one_work+0x263/0x520
[ 594.159195] worker_thread+0x4d/0x3b0
[ 594.159200] kthread+0xeb/0x120
[ 594.159206] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
[ 594.159211]
-> #2 (acpi_wakeup_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 594.159218] __mutex_lock+0x95/0xd10
[ 594.159223] acpi_pm_set_device_wakeup+0x7a/0x140
[ 594.159228] __pci_enable_wake+0x77/0xb0
[ 594.159234] pci_pm_runtime_resume+0x70/0xd0
[ 594.159240] __rpm_callback+0x3c/0x110
[ 594.159246] rpm_callback+0x58/0x70
[ 594.159252] rpm_resume+0x50d/0x7a0
[ 594.159258] rpm_resume+0x267/0x7a0
[ 594.159264] __pm_runtime_resume+0x45/0x90
[ 594.159270] xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get+0x12/0x50 [xe]
[ 594.159314] xe_device_mem_access_get+0x97/0xc0 [xe]
[ 594.159346] hw_engines+0x65/0xf0 [xe]
[ 594.159380] seq_read_iter+0x10d/0x4b0
[ 594.159385] seq_read+0x9e/0xd0
[ 594.159390] full_proxy_read+0x4e/0x80
[ 594.159396] vfs_read+0xb6/0x310
[ 594.159401] ksys_read+0x60/0xe0
[ 594.159406] do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
[ 594.159413] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
[ 594.159419]
-> #1 (&xe->mem_access.lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 594.159427] xe_device_mem_access_get+0x43/0xc0 [xe]
[ 594.159457] xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_vma+0x53/0x190 [xe]
[ 594.159490] invalidation_fence_init+0x1d2/0x2c0 [xe]
[ 594.159529] __xe_pt_unbind_vma+0x151/0x4e0 [xe]
[ 594.159564] vm_bind_ioctl+0x48a/0xae0 [xe]
[ 594.159602] async_op_work_func+0x20c/0x530 [xe]
[ 594.159634] process_one_work+0x263/0x520
[ 594.159640] worker_thread+0x4d/0x3b0
[ 594.159646] kthread+0xeb/0x120
[ 594.159650] ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
[ 594.159655]
-> #0 (&vm->userptr.notifier_lock){++++}-{3:3}:
[ 594.159663] __lock_acquire+0x16fa/0x2850
[ 594.159670] lock_acquire+0xd2/0x2e0
[ 594.159676] down_write+0x36/0xd0
[ 594.159681] vma_userptr_invalidate+0xeb/0x330 [xe]
[ 594.159714] __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start+0x239/0x2a0
[ 594.159722] unmap_vmas+0x1ac/0x1c0
[ 594.159727] unmap_region+0xb5/0x120
[ 594.159732] do_vmi_align_munmap+0x2be/0x430
[ 594.159739] do_vmi_munmap+0xea/0x120
[ 594.159744] __vm_munmap+0x9c/0x160
[ 594.159750] __x64_sys_munmap+0x12/0x20
[ 594.159756] do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
[ 594.159761] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
[ 594.159768]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 594.159773] Chain exists of:
&vm->userptr.notifier_lock --> fs_reclaim -->
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start
[ 594.159785] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 594.159790] CPU0 CPU1
[ 594.159794] ---- ----
[ 594.159797] lock(mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start);
[ 594.159802] lock(fs_reclaim);
[ 594.159808]
lock(mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start);
[ 594.159814] lock(&vm->userptr.notifier_lock);
[ 594.159819]
The VM should be holding a mem_access.ref so this looks like it should
be a false positive and we can just drop the explicit mem_access in
xe_gt_tlb_invalidation(). The GGTT invalidation path also takes care to
hold mem_access.ref so should be fine there also, and we already assert
that we hold access.ref for the GuC communication underneath.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c | 8 ++------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
index e2b85559257c..cad0ade595ec 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_gt_tlb_invalidation.c
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ 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, ret;
+ int len = 0;
XE_BUG_ON(!vma);
@@ -302,11 +302,7 @@ int xe_gt_tlb_invalidation_vma(struct xe_gt *gt,
XE_BUG_ON(len > MAX_TLB_INVALIDATION_LEN);
- xe_device_mem_access_get(xe);
- ret = send_tlb_invalidation(>->uc.guc, fence, action, len);
- xe_device_mem_access_put(xe);
-
- return ret;
+ return send_tlb_invalidation(>->uc.guc, fence, action, len);
}
/**
--
2.41.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-19 8:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-19 8:38 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 00/10] xe_device_mem_access fixes and related bits Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 01/10] drm/xe: fix xe_device_mem_access_get() races Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 02/10] drm/xe/vm: tidy up xe_runtime_pm usage Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 03/10] drm/xe/debugfs: grab mem_access around forcewake Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 04/10] drm/xe/guc_pc: add missing mem_access for freq_rpe_show Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 05/10] drm/xe/mmio: grab mem_access in xe_mmio_ioctl Matthew Auld
2023-07-28 21:05 ` Matt Roper
2023-07-31 18:44 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 06/10] drm/xe: ensure correct access_put ordering Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 07/10] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from guc_ct_send Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 08/10] drm/xe/ggtt: prime ggtt->lock against FS_RECLAIM Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
2023-07-19 8:38 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 10/10] drm/xe: add lockdep annotation for xe_device_mem_access_get() Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 9:31 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for xe_device_mem_access fixes and related bits (rev7) Patchwork
2023-07-19 9:31 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2023-07-19 9:32 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2023-07-19 9:36 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-07-19 9:36 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2023-07-19 9:38 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2023-07-19 10:13 ` [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=20230719083801.182123-21-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.