All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
	wangxiaoming321 <xiaoming.wang@intel.com>
Cc: daniel@ffwll.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mripard@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	tzimmermann@suse.de, airlied@gmail.com,
	intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Fix memleak in display initialization
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:07:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zfwlh78b.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abko5y3n5mju6srjly257bpqlvjf5ie6h6snboaekxnfv5mu76@jjumdgev76ag>

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
> +Jani
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:34:53PM +0800, wangxiaoming321 wrote:
>>intel_power_domains_init has been called twice in xe_device_probe:
>>xe_device_probe -> xe_display_init_nommio -> intel_power_domains_init(xe)
>>xe_device_probe -> xe_display_init_noirq -> intel_display_driver_probe_noirq
>>-> intel_power_domains_init(i915)
>
> ok, once upon a time intel_power_domains_init() was called by the driver
> initialization code and not initialized inside the display. I think.
> Now it's part of the display probe and we never updated the xe side.
>
>>
>>It needs remove one to avoid power_domains->power_wells double malloc.
>>
>>unreferenced object 0xffff88811150ee00 (size 512):
>>  comm "systemd-udevd", pid 506, jiffies 4294674198 (age 3605.560s)
>>  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>    10 b4 9d a0 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff  ................
>>    ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
>>  backtrace:
>>    [<ffffffff8134b901>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1c1/0x2b0
>>    [<ffffffff812c98b2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150
>>    [<ffffffffa08b0033>] __set_power_wells+0xc3/0x360 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa08562fc>] xe_display_init_nommio+0x4c/0x70 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa07f0d1c>] xe_device_probe+0x3c/0x5a0 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa082e48f>] xe_pci_probe+0x33f/0x5a0 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffff817f2187>] local_pci_probe+0x47/0xa0
>>    [<ffffffff817f3db3>] pci_device_probe+0xc3/0x1f0
>>    [<ffffffff8192f2a2>] really_probe+0x1a2/0x410
>>    [<ffffffff8192f598>] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x160
>>    [<ffffffff8192f6ae>] driver_probe_device+0x1e/0x90
>>    [<ffffffff8192f92a>] __driver_attach+0xda/0x1d0
>>    [<ffffffff8192c95c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x7c/0xd0
>>    [<ffffffff8192e159>] bus_add_driver+0x119/0x220
>>    [<ffffffff81930d00>] driver_register+0x60/0x120
>>    [<ffffffffa05e50a0>] 0xffffffffa05e50a0
>>
>
> This will need a Fixes trailer.  This seems to be a suitable one:
>
> Fixes: 44e694958b95 ("drm/xe/display: Implement display support")
>
>>Signed-off-by: wangxiaoming321 <xiaoming.wang@intel.com>
>>---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c | 6 ------
>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>index 74391d9b11ae..e4db069f0db3 100644
>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>@@ -134,8 +134,6 @@ static void xe_display_fini_nommio(struct drm_device *dev, void *dummy)
>>
>> int xe_display_init_nommio(struct xe_device *xe)
>> {
>>-	int err;
>>-
>> 	if (!xe->info.enable_display)
>> 		return 0;
>>
>>@@ -145,10 +143,6 @@ int xe_display_init_nommio(struct xe_device *xe)
>> 	/* This must be called before any calls to HAS_PCH_* */
>> 	intel_detect_pch(xe);
>>
>>-	err = intel_power_domains_init(xe);
>>-	if (err)
>>-		return err;
>
> xe_display_init_nommio() has xe_display_fini_nommio() as its destructor
> counter part. Unfortunately display side looks wrong as it does:
>
> init:
> 	intel_display_driver_probe_noirq() -> intel_power_domains_init()
>
> destroy:
> 	i915_driver_late_release() -> intel_power_domains_cleanup()
>
> I think leaving intel_power_domains_cleanup() as is for now so it's
> called by xe works, but this needs to go through CI, which apparently
> this series didn't go. I re-triggered it.
>
> +Jani if he thinks this can be changed in another way or already have
> the complete solution.

I don't. But it is and will be a recurring problem. i915 and xe core
drivers should handle display init and cleanup the same way. But
currently i915 goes on to call e.g. intel_power_domains_cleanup()
directly from top level driver code. There are other examples.

And we seem to have recently added *more*. See e.g. bd738d859e71
("drm/i915: Prevent modesets during driver init/shutdown").


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
	wangxiaoming321 <xiaoming.wang@intel.com>
Cc: thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com, daniel@ffwll.ch,
	ogabbay@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	mripard@kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	tzimmermann@suse.de, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Fix memleak in display initialization
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:07:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zfwlh78b.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abko5y3n5mju6srjly257bpqlvjf5ie6h6snboaekxnfv5mu76@jjumdgev76ag>

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
> +Jani
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:34:53PM +0800, wangxiaoming321 wrote:
>>intel_power_domains_init has been called twice in xe_device_probe:
>>xe_device_probe -> xe_display_init_nommio -> intel_power_domains_init(xe)
>>xe_device_probe -> xe_display_init_noirq -> intel_display_driver_probe_noirq
>>-> intel_power_domains_init(i915)
>
> ok, once upon a time intel_power_domains_init() was called by the driver
> initialization code and not initialized inside the display. I think.
> Now it's part of the display probe and we never updated the xe side.
>
>>
>>It needs remove one to avoid power_domains->power_wells double malloc.
>>
>>unreferenced object 0xffff88811150ee00 (size 512):
>>  comm "systemd-udevd", pid 506, jiffies 4294674198 (age 3605.560s)
>>  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>    10 b4 9d a0 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff  ................
>>    ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
>>  backtrace:
>>    [<ffffffff8134b901>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1c1/0x2b0
>>    [<ffffffff812c98b2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150
>>    [<ffffffffa08b0033>] __set_power_wells+0xc3/0x360 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa08562fc>] xe_display_init_nommio+0x4c/0x70 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa07f0d1c>] xe_device_probe+0x3c/0x5a0 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa082e48f>] xe_pci_probe+0x33f/0x5a0 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffff817f2187>] local_pci_probe+0x47/0xa0
>>    [<ffffffff817f3db3>] pci_device_probe+0xc3/0x1f0
>>    [<ffffffff8192f2a2>] really_probe+0x1a2/0x410
>>    [<ffffffff8192f598>] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x160
>>    [<ffffffff8192f6ae>] driver_probe_device+0x1e/0x90
>>    [<ffffffff8192f92a>] __driver_attach+0xda/0x1d0
>>    [<ffffffff8192c95c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x7c/0xd0
>>    [<ffffffff8192e159>] bus_add_driver+0x119/0x220
>>    [<ffffffff81930d00>] driver_register+0x60/0x120
>>    [<ffffffffa05e50a0>] 0xffffffffa05e50a0
>>
>
> This will need a Fixes trailer.  This seems to be a suitable one:
>
> Fixes: 44e694958b95 ("drm/xe/display: Implement display support")
>
>>Signed-off-by: wangxiaoming321 <xiaoming.wang@intel.com>
>>---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c | 6 ------
>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>index 74391d9b11ae..e4db069f0db3 100644
>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>@@ -134,8 +134,6 @@ static void xe_display_fini_nommio(struct drm_device *dev, void *dummy)
>>
>> int xe_display_init_nommio(struct xe_device *xe)
>> {
>>-	int err;
>>-
>> 	if (!xe->info.enable_display)
>> 		return 0;
>>
>>@@ -145,10 +143,6 @@ int xe_display_init_nommio(struct xe_device *xe)
>> 	/* This must be called before any calls to HAS_PCH_* */
>> 	intel_detect_pch(xe);
>>
>>-	err = intel_power_domains_init(xe);
>>-	if (err)
>>-		return err;
>
> xe_display_init_nommio() has xe_display_fini_nommio() as its destructor
> counter part. Unfortunately display side looks wrong as it does:
>
> init:
> 	intel_display_driver_probe_noirq() -> intel_power_domains_init()
>
> destroy:
> 	i915_driver_late_release() -> intel_power_domains_cleanup()
>
> I think leaving intel_power_domains_cleanup() as is for now so it's
> called by xe works, but this needs to go through CI, which apparently
> this series didn't go. I re-triggered it.
>
> +Jani if he thinks this can be changed in another way or already have
> the complete solution.

I don't. But it is and will be a recurring problem. i915 and xe core
drivers should handle display init and cleanup the same way. But
currently i915 goes on to call e.g. intel_power_domains_cleanup()
directly from top level driver code. There are other examples.

And we seem to have recently added *more*. See e.g. bd738d859e71
("drm/i915: Prevent modesets during driver init/shutdown").


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>,
	wangxiaoming321 <xiaoming.wang@intel.com>
Cc: ogabbay@kernel.org, thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com,
	maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com, mripard@kernel.org,
	tzimmermann@suse.de, airlied@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch,
	intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Fix memleak in display initialization
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:07:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87zfwlh78b.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <abko5y3n5mju6srjly257bpqlvjf5ie6h6snboaekxnfv5mu76@jjumdgev76ag>

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com> wrote:
> +Jani
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:34:53PM +0800, wangxiaoming321 wrote:
>>intel_power_domains_init has been called twice in xe_device_probe:
>>xe_device_probe -> xe_display_init_nommio -> intel_power_domains_init(xe)
>>xe_device_probe -> xe_display_init_noirq -> intel_display_driver_probe_noirq
>>-> intel_power_domains_init(i915)
>
> ok, once upon a time intel_power_domains_init() was called by the driver
> initialization code and not initialized inside the display. I think.
> Now it's part of the display probe and we never updated the xe side.
>
>>
>>It needs remove one to avoid power_domains->power_wells double malloc.
>>
>>unreferenced object 0xffff88811150ee00 (size 512):
>>  comm "systemd-udevd", pid 506, jiffies 4294674198 (age 3605.560s)
>>  hex dump (first 32 bytes):
>>    10 b4 9d a0 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff  ................
>>    ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
>>  backtrace:
>>    [<ffffffff8134b901>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1c1/0x2b0
>>    [<ffffffff812c98b2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150
>>    [<ffffffffa08b0033>] __set_power_wells+0xc3/0x360 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa08562fc>] xe_display_init_nommio+0x4c/0x70 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa07f0d1c>] xe_device_probe+0x3c/0x5a0 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffffa082e48f>] xe_pci_probe+0x33f/0x5a0 [xe]
>>    [<ffffffff817f2187>] local_pci_probe+0x47/0xa0
>>    [<ffffffff817f3db3>] pci_device_probe+0xc3/0x1f0
>>    [<ffffffff8192f2a2>] really_probe+0x1a2/0x410
>>    [<ffffffff8192f598>] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x160
>>    [<ffffffff8192f6ae>] driver_probe_device+0x1e/0x90
>>    [<ffffffff8192f92a>] __driver_attach+0xda/0x1d0
>>    [<ffffffff8192c95c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x7c/0xd0
>>    [<ffffffff8192e159>] bus_add_driver+0x119/0x220
>>    [<ffffffff81930d00>] driver_register+0x60/0x120
>>    [<ffffffffa05e50a0>] 0xffffffffa05e50a0
>>
>
> This will need a Fixes trailer.  This seems to be a suitable one:
>
> Fixes: 44e694958b95 ("drm/xe/display: Implement display support")
>
>>Signed-off-by: wangxiaoming321 <xiaoming.wang@intel.com>
>>---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c | 6 ------
>> 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>index 74391d9b11ae..e4db069f0db3 100644
>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
>>@@ -134,8 +134,6 @@ static void xe_display_fini_nommio(struct drm_device *dev, void *dummy)
>>
>> int xe_display_init_nommio(struct xe_device *xe)
>> {
>>-	int err;
>>-
>> 	if (!xe->info.enable_display)
>> 		return 0;
>>
>>@@ -145,10 +143,6 @@ int xe_display_init_nommio(struct xe_device *xe)
>> 	/* This must be called before any calls to HAS_PCH_* */
>> 	intel_detect_pch(xe);
>>
>>-	err = intel_power_domains_init(xe);
>>-	if (err)
>>-		return err;
>
> xe_display_init_nommio() has xe_display_fini_nommio() as its destructor
> counter part. Unfortunately display side looks wrong as it does:
>
> init:
> 	intel_display_driver_probe_noirq() -> intel_power_domains_init()
>
> destroy:
> 	i915_driver_late_release() -> intel_power_domains_cleanup()
>
> I think leaving intel_power_domains_cleanup() as is for now so it's
> called by xe works, but this needs to go through CI, which apparently
> this series didn't go. I re-triggered it.
>
> +Jani if he thinks this can be changed in another way or already have
> the complete solution.

I don't. But it is and will be a recurring problem. i915 and xe core
drivers should handle display init and cleanup the same way. But
currently i915 goes on to call e.g. intel_power_domains_cleanup()
directly from top level driver code. There are other examples.

And we seem to have recently added *more*. See e.g. bd738d859e71
("drm/i915: Prevent modesets during driver init/shutdown").


BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel

  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-31 15:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-25  6:36 [PATCH] drm/xe/display: Fix memleak in display initialization wangxiaoming321
2024-01-25  9:41 ` Jani Nikula
2024-01-26 14:34 ` wangxiaoming321
2024-01-26 14:44   ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-01-26 14:44     ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-01-26 14:44     ` Ville Syrjälä
2024-01-26 15:34 ` wangxiaoming321
2024-01-31 14:54   ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-01-31 14:54     ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-01-31 14:54     ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-01-31 15:07     ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2024-01-31 15:07       ` Jani Nikula
2024-01-31 15:07       ` Jani Nikula
2024-02-01 14:19       ` Maarten Lankhorst
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-02-02 21:56 Lucas De Marchi
2024-02-03  6:05 ` Lucas De Marchi

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=87zfwlh78b.fsf@intel.com \
    --to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=airlied@gmail.com \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --cc=mripard@kernel.org \
    --cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
    --cc=xiaoming.wang@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.