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 10/10] drm/xe: add lockdep annotation for xe_device_mem_access_get()
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:38:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230719083801.182123-22-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230719083801.182123-12-matthew.auld@intel.com>
The atomics here might hide potential issues, also rpm core is not
holding any lock when calling our rpm resume callback, 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>
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@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 ba2b83925ded..1c57944014e0 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;
@@ -458,10 +464,28 @@ 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_lockdep_map -> runtime_resume callback once, and then can
+ * hopefully validate all the (callers_locks) -> mem_access_lockdep_map.
+ * 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);
+
xe_pm_runtime_get(xe);
ref = atomic_inc_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
XE_WARN_ON(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
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 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v15 09/10] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from invalidation_vma Matthew Auld
2023-07-19 8:38 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
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=20230719083801.182123-22-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.