From: "Khatri, Sunil" <sukhatri@amd.com>
To: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Sunil Khatri" <sunil.khatri@amd.com>,
"Alex Deucher" <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Liang@rtg-sunil-navi33.amd.com,
Prike <Prike.Liang@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu/userq: add mutex lock/unlocked version of amdgpu_userq_put
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2026 16:44:13 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <df13f705-78c5-4e3a-86bf-8fc969b30d5c@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9481ee5c-fc2d-4b65-b3bc-cdcdb3180136@amd.com>
On 20-03-2026 04:27 pm, Christian König wrote:
> On 3/20/26 11:53, Khatri, Sunil wrote:
>> On 20-03-2026 03:43 pm, Christian König wrote:
>>> On 3/20/26 11:02, Khatri, Sunil wrote:
>>>> On 20-03-2026 03:16 pm, Christian König wrote:
>>>>> On 3/20/26 10:41, Sunil Khatri wrote:
>>>>>> There is a possibility of deadlock when last reference to a queue is
>>>>>> put in certain situations where mutex is already help when calling
>>>>>> the amdgpu_userq_destroy.
>>>>> From functions
>>>>> As far as I can see that is illegal to begin with. Why are we doing that?
>>>> This is to fix the deadlock that prike shared and many other places where deadlock could still be caused.
>>>> There is a possibility of amdgpu_userq_put being called for last reference from amdgpu_userq_restore_worker or amdgpu_eviction_fence_suspend_worker via amdgpu_evf_mgr_shutdown
>>>> and all these functions already hold the userq_mutex and on last reference when destroy is called it again takes userq_mutex and causing deadlock.
>>>>
>>>> Thats why when we are dropping the reference we pass the information of the handled could be called with lock already taken and hence the handling.
>>> Well that sounds like completely broken handling.
>>>
>>> Why are dropping an userqueu reference while holding the lock in the first place?
>> we are doing at withing the locked state in most of the place in the code.
>> few examples:
>> static void amdgpu_userq_restore_worker(struct work_struct *work)
>> {
>> struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr = work_to_uq_mgr(work, resume_work.work);
>> struct amdgpu_fpriv *fpriv = uq_mgr_to_fpriv(uq_mgr);
>> struct dma_fence *ev_fence;
>> int ret;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>> ev_fence = amdgpu_evf_mgr_get_fence(&fpriv->evf_mgr);
>> if (!dma_fence_is_signaled(ev_fence))
>> goto unlock;
>>
>> ret = amdgpu_userq_vm_validate(uq_mgr);
>> if (ret) {
>> drm_file_err(uq_mgr->file, "Failed to validate BOs to restore\n");
>> goto unlock;
>> }
>>
>> // Here the restore all is going through all the queues one bye one by doing get and put
> That is ok, the question is why the heck is doing that get/put? See we need get/put because we are *not* holding the lock.
>
> When we are holding the lock no get/put is needed at all.
Got your point. In that case there is a bug in code and this could be
resolved with clean up or doing get/put where queue mutex is not locked.
Will send the update here.
Regards
Sunil Khatri
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
>> and doing the restore of each queue. Now during put if its last reference due to race with another thread in putting we will
>> call the destroy with locks taken which causes deadlock.
>> ret = amdgpu_userq_restore_all(uq_mgr);
>> if (ret) {
>> drm_file_err(uq_mgr->file, "Failed to restore all queues\n");
>> goto unlock;
>> }
>>
>> unlock:
>> mutex_unlock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>> dma_fence_put(ev_fence);
>> }
>>
>> Another example:
>> static void
>> amdgpu_eviction_fence_suspend_worker(struct work_struct *work)
>> {
>> struct amdgpu_eviction_fence_mgr *evf_mgr =
>> container_of(work, struct amdgpu_eviction_fence_mgr,
>> suspend_work);
>> struct amdgpu_fpriv *fpriv =
>> container_of(evf_mgr, struct amdgpu_fpriv, evf_mgr);
>> struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr = &fpriv->userq_mgr;
>> struct dma_fence *ev_fence;
>> bool cookie;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>>
>> /*
>> * This is intentionally after taking the userq_mutex since we do
>> * allocate memory while holding this lock, but only after ensuring that
>> * the eviction fence is signaled.
>> */
>> cookie = dma_fence_begin_signalling();
>>
>> ev_fence = amdgpu_evf_mgr_get_fence(evf_mgr);
>>
>>
>> /* Here in userq evict we do a ref get and put a various places while the mutex is already taken */
>>
>> amdgpu_userq_evict(uq_mgr, !evf_mgr->shutdown);
>>
>> /*
>> * Signaling the eviction fence must be done while holding the
>> * userq_mutex. Otherwise we won't resume the queues before issuing the
>> * next fence.
>> */
>> dma_fence_signal(ev_fence);
>> dma_fence_end_signalling(cookie);
>> dma_fence_put(ev_fence);
>> mutex_unlock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>>
>> }
>>
>> Regards
>> Sunil.
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Sunil khatri
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So based on the thread where it could be
>>>>>> locked we pass the locked information in the destroy functionality
>>>>>> to avoid taking the lock again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: Liang, Prike <Prike.Liang@amd.com>
>>>>>> Suggested-by: Liang, Prike <Prike.Liang@amd.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sunil Khatri <sunil.khatri@amd.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c | 52 +++++++++++++------
>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h | 2 +-
>>>>>> .../gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c | 4 +-
>>>>>> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c
>>>>>> index ced9ade44be4..9482664e9c2c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c
>>>>>> @@ -617,13 +617,17 @@ amdgpu_userq_get_doorbell_index(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr,
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> static int
>>>>>> -amdgpu_userq_destroy(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr, struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *queue)
>>>>>> +amdgpu_userq_destroy(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr, struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *queue,
>>>>>> + bool locked)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct amdgpu_device *adev = uq_mgr->adev;
>>>>>> int r = 0;
>>>>>> - cancel_delayed_work_sync(&uq_mgr->resume_work);
>>>>>> + /* It safe to unlock since we are in destroy and the queue ref is only this */
>>>>>> + if (locked)
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>>>>>> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&uq_mgr->resume_work);
>>>>>> /* Cancel any pending hang detection work and cleanup */
>>>>>> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&queue->hang_detect_work);
>>>>>> @@ -657,13 +661,27 @@ amdgpu_userq_destroy(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr, struct amdgpu_usermode_que
>>>>>> queue->state = AMDGPU_USERQ_STATE_HUNG;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> amdgpu_userq_cleanup(queue);
>>>>>> - mutex_unlock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (!locked)
>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>>>>>> pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(adev_to_drm(adev)->dev);
>>>>>> return r;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +static void amdgpu_userq_kref_destroy_locked(struct kref *kref)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + int r;
>>>>>> + struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *queue =
>>>>>> + container_of(kref, struct amdgpu_usermode_queue, refcount);
>>>>>> + struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr = queue->userq_mgr;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + r = amdgpu_userq_destroy(uq_mgr, queue, true);
>>>>>> + if (r)
>>>>>> + drm_file_err(uq_mgr->file, "Failed to destroy usermode queue %d\n", r);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> static void amdgpu_userq_kref_destroy(struct kref *kref)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int r;
>>>>>> @@ -671,7 +689,7 @@ static void amdgpu_userq_kref_destroy(struct kref *kref)
>>>>>> container_of(kref, struct amdgpu_usermode_queue, refcount);
>>>>>> struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr = queue->userq_mgr;
>>>>>> - r = amdgpu_userq_destroy(uq_mgr, queue);
>>>>>> + r = amdgpu_userq_destroy(uq_mgr, queue, false);
>>>>>> if (r)
>>>>>> drm_file_err(uq_mgr->file, "Failed to destroy usermode queue %d\n", r);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> @@ -689,10 +707,14 @@ struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *amdgpu_userq_get(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr,
>>>>>> return queue;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> -void amdgpu_userq_put(struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *queue)
>>>>>> +void amdgpu_userq_put(struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *queue, bool locked)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> - if (queue)
>>>>>> - kref_put(&queue->refcount, amdgpu_userq_kref_destroy);
>>>>>> + if (queue) {
>>>>>> + if (locked)
>>>>>> + kref_put(&queue->refcount, amdgpu_userq_kref_destroy_locked);
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + kref_put(&queue->refcount, amdgpu_userq_kref_destroy);
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> static int amdgpu_userq_priority_permit(struct drm_file *filp,
>>>>>> @@ -978,7 +1000,7 @@ int amdgpu_userq_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>>>>> if (!queue)
>>>>>> return -ENOENT;
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, false);
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> @@ -1007,7 +1029,7 @@ amdgpu_userq_restore_all(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr)
>>>>>> drm_file_err(uq_mgr->file,
>>>>>> "trying restore queue without va mapping\n");
>>>>>> queue->state = AMDGPU_USERQ_STATE_INVALID_VA;
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, true);
>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> @@ -1015,7 +1037,7 @@ amdgpu_userq_restore_all(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr)
>>>>>> if (r)
>>>>>> ret = r;
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, true);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>> @@ -1258,7 +1280,7 @@ amdgpu_userq_evict_all(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr)
>>>>>> r = amdgpu_userq_preempt_helper(queue);
>>>>>> if (r)
>>>>>> ret = r;
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, true);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>> @@ -1298,17 +1320,17 @@ amdgpu_userq_wait_for_signal(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr)
>>>>>> struct dma_fence *f = queue->last_fence;
>>>>>> if (!f || dma_fence_is_signaled(f)) {
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, true);
>>>>>> continue;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> ret = dma_fence_wait_timeout(f, true, msecs_to_jiffies(100));
>>>>>> if (ret <= 0) {
>>>>>> drm_file_err(uq_mgr->file, "Timed out waiting for fence=%llu:%llu\n",
>>>>>> f->context, f->seqno);
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, true);
>>>>>> return -ETIMEDOUT;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, true);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> @@ -1366,7 +1388,7 @@ void amdgpu_userq_mgr_fini(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *userq_mgr)
>>>>>> if (!queue)
>>>>>> break;
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, false);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> xa_destroy(&userq_mgr->userq_xa);
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h
>>>>>> index f0abc16d02cc..2a496e74ec6a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h
>>>>>> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ struct amdgpu_db_info {
>>>>>> };
>>>>>> struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *amdgpu_userq_get(struct amdgpu_userq_mgr *uq_mgr, u32 qid);
>>>>>> -void amdgpu_userq_put(struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *queue);
>>>>>> +void amdgpu_userq_put(struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *queue, bool locked);
>>>>>> int amdgpu_userq_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *filp);
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
>>>>>> index 18390d37a7e0..10e08cb6bd13 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq_fence.c
>>>>>> @@ -612,7 +612,7 @@ int amdgpu_userq_signal_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
>>>>>> kfree(syncobj_handles);
>>>>>> if (queue)
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(queue);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(queue, false);
>>>>>> return r;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> @@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ amdgpu_userq_wait_return_fence_info(struct drm_file *filp,
>>>>>> r = 0;
>>>>>> put_waitq:
>>>>>> - amdgpu_userq_put(waitq);
>>>>>> + amdgpu_userq_put(waitq, false);
>>>>>> free_fences:
>>>>>> while (num_fences--)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-20 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-20 9:41 [PATCH] drm/amdgpu/userq: add mutex lock/unlocked version of amdgpu_userq_put Sunil Khatri
2026-03-20 9:46 ` Christian König
2026-03-20 10:02 ` Khatri, Sunil
2026-03-20 10:13 ` Christian König
2026-03-20 10:53 ` Khatri, Sunil
2026-03-20 10:57 ` Christian König
2026-03-20 11:14 ` Khatri, Sunil [this message]
2026-03-20 12:10 ` Khatri, Sunil
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-03-20 9:43 Sunil Khatri
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=df13f705-78c5-4e3a-86bf-8fc969b30d5c@amd.com \
--to=sukhatri@amd.com \
--cc=Liang@rtg-sunil-navi33.amd.com \
--cc=Prike.Liang@amd.com \
--cc=alexander.deucher@amd.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=sunil.khatri@amd.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox