All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Raag Jadav" <raag.jadav@intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 08/10] drm/xe: Introduce temporary device wedging
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 11:37:57 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260821113758.006681F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260821112436.545405-9-raag.jadav@intel.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] Sleeping in atomic context due to `mutex_lock()` in `xe_device_declare_wedged()`.
- [High] Unprotected state modification and double-increment of `wedged.ref` in `prepare_device_for_reset()`.
- [High] Temporary wedged state from PCI error recovery leaks PM reference and triggers teardown assert if recovery aborts.
--

--- Patch [8]: [PATCH v10 08/10] drm/xe: Introduce temporary device wedging ---
commit 102094142d418b8de53397ac8e1fbe1c7ca46ae9
Author: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>

drm/xe: Introduce temporary device wedging

This commit converts the boolean wedged flag to a reference count to allow
temporary wedged states. It also introduces a perm flag for permanent
wedging and a mutex to protect the wedged state transitions.

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -1476,36 +1526,40 @@ void xe_device_declare_wedged(struct xe_device *xe)
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!atomic_xchg(&xe->wedged.flag, 1)) {
> -		xe->needs_flr_on_fini = true;
> -		xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume(xe);
> +	mutex_lock(&xe->wedged.lock);

[Severity: Critical]
Can this cause a sleeping in atomic context panic?

xe_device_declare_wedged() can be called from hard IRQ contexts, for
example:

xe_mert_irq_handler()
  mert_handle_cat_error()
    xe_device_declare_wedged()

Since mutex_lock() can sleep, taking it here from an interrupt handler
would lead to a scheduling while atomic regression.

[ ... ]
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_error.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_error.c
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_error.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pci_error.c
> @@ -25,8 +25,10 @@ static void prepare_device_for_reset(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  	 * xe_device_wedged_fini() releases runtime pm if wedged flag is set, so acquire a runtime
>  	 * pm reference to avoid underflow.
>  	 */
> -	if (!atomic_xchg(&xe->wedged.flag, 1))
> -		xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume(xe);
> +	xe_device_wedged_get(xe);
> +
> +	/* TODO: We shouldn't be doing such ugly hacks, reuse FLR helpers and drop this. */
> +	xe->wedged.perm = true;

[Severity: High]
Could this leak a reference and cause an assertion failure during device
teardown if the device is already wedged?

Unlike the old atomic_xchg code which checked if the device was already
wedged, xe_device_wedged_get() increments the reference count unconditionally.
If the device is already wedged from a previous event, the reference count
will be incremented twice.

During teardown, xe_device_wedged_fini() only drops a single reference
when wedged.perm is true:

drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c:xe_device_wedged_fini() {
    if (xe->wedged.perm)
        xe_device_wedged_put(xe);

    xe_assert(xe, !xe_device_wedged(xe));
}

Will the second reference be left behind and trip the xe_assert() check?
Also, should the state modification here be protected by xe->wedged.lock?

[ ... ]
> @@ -126,7 +128,7 @@ static pci_ers_result_t xe_pci_error_slot_reset(struct pci_dev *pdev)
>  	xe = pdev_to_xe_device(pdev);
>  
>  	/* Wedge the device to prevent I/O operations till the resume callback */
> -	atomic_set(&xe->wedged.flag, 1);
> +	xe_device_wedged_get(xe);

[Severity: High]
If the PCI error recovery aborts or fails here, and the device is subsequently
unbound, will this leak the runtime PM reference?

This code acquires a temporary wedged reference but does not set
xe->wedged.perm to true. If the expected xe_pci_error_resume() is never
called due to a recovery failure, xe_device_wedged_fini() will see
xe->wedged.perm as false and skip dropping the reference, which would
ultimately trigger the xe_assert(xe, !xe_device_wedged(xe)) on teardown.

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260821112436.545405-1-raag.jadav@intel.com?part=8

  reply	other threads:[~2026-08-21 11:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-08-21 11:23 [PATCH v10 00/10] Introduce Xe PCIe FLR Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 01/10] drm/xe/uc_fw: Allow re-initializing firmware Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:41   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 02/10] drm/xe/guc_submit: Introduce guc_exec_queue_reinit_kernel() Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:52   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 03/10] drm/xe/gt: Introduce FLR helpers Raag Jadav
2026-08-26  9:39   ` Tauro, Riana
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 04/10] drm/xe/bo_evict: Introduce xe_bo_restore_map() Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 05/10] drm/xe/exec_queue: Introduce xe_exec_queue_reinit() Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:43   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 06/10] drm/xe/migrate: Introduce xe_migrate_reinit() Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:39   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 07/10] drm/xe/pm: Introduce xe_device_suspend/resume() Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:43   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-24 18:22     ` Rodrigo Vivi
2026-08-26  7:01       ` Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 08/10] drm/xe: Introduce temporary device wedging Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:37   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-24 14:30     ` Laguna, Lukasz
2026-08-24 16:08       ` Raag Jadav
2026-08-24 18:29       ` Rodrigo Vivi
2026-08-25  7:41         ` Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 09/10] drm/xe/pci: Introduce PCIe Function Level Reset Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:39   ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-25 10:06   ` Laguna, Lukasz
2026-08-26  9:01     ` Raag Jadav
2026-08-26  9:52       ` Tauro, Riana
2026-08-26 11:38         ` Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:23 ` [PATCH v10 10/10] drm/xe/doc: Wire up PCI Error Handling Raag Jadav
2026-08-21 11:31 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Introduce Xe PCIe FLR (rev10) Patchwork
2026-08-21 11:33 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2026-08-21 12:37 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-08-21 14:38 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: " 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=20260821113758.006681F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=raag.jadav@intel.com \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /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.