Re: [PATCH v2] drm/scheduler: Fix hang when sched_entity released

[Andrey Grodzovsky <Andrey.Grodzovsky@amd.com>]

On 2/18/21 3:07 AM, Christian König wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.02.21 um 22:59 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
>> Problem: If scheduler is already stopped by the time sched_entity
>> is released and entity's job_queue not empty I encountred
>> a hang in drm_sched_entity_flush. This is because drm_sched_entity_is_idle
>> never becomes false.
>>
>> Fix: In drm_sched_fini detach all sched_entities from the
>> scheduler's run queues. This will satisfy drm_sched_entity_is_idle.
>> Also wakeup all those processes stuck in sched_entity flushing
>> as the scheduler main thread which wakes them up is stopped by now.
>>
>> v2:
>> Reverse order of drm_sched_rq_remove_entity and marking
>> s_entity as stopped to prevent reinserion back to rq due
>> to race.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c 
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>> index 908b0b5..c6b7947 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>> @@ -897,9 +897,40 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_sched_init);
>>    */
>>   void drm_sched_fini(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
>>   {
>> +    int i;
>> +    struct drm_sched_entity *s_entity;
>
> BTW: Please order that so that i is declared last.
>
>>       if (sched->thread)
>>           kthread_stop(sched->thread);
>>   +    /* Detach all sched_entites from this scheduler once it's stopped */
>> +    for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT - 1; i >= DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN; i--) {
>> +        struct drm_sched_rq *rq = &sched->sched_rq[i];
>> +
>> +        if (!rq)
>> +            continue;
>> +
>> +        /* Loop this way because rq->lock is taken in 
>> drm_sched_rq_remove_entity */
>> +        spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>> +        while ((s_entity = list_first_entry_or_null(&rq->entities,
>> +                                struct drm_sched_entity,
>> +                                list))) {
>> +            spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>> +
>> +            /* Prevent reinsertion and remove */
>> +            spin_lock(&s_entity->rq_lock);
>> +            s_entity->stopped = true;
>> +            drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(rq, s_entity);
>> +            spin_unlock(&s_entity->rq_lock);
>
> Well this spin_unlock/lock dance here doesn't look correct at all now.
>
> Christian.


In what way ? It's in the same same order as in other call sites (see 
drm_sched_entity_push_job and drm_sched_entity_flush).
If i just locked rq->lock and did list_for_each_entry_safe while manually 
deleting entity->list instead of calling
drm_sched_rq_remove_entity this still would not be possible as the order of lock 
acquisition between  s_entity->rq_lock
and rq->lock would be reverse compared to the call sites mentioned above.

Andrey



>
>> +
>> +            spin_lock(&rq->lock);
>> +        }
>> +        spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>> +
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /* Wakeup everyone stuck in drm_sched_entity_flush for this scheduler */
>> +    wake_up_all(&sched->job_scheduled);
>> +
>>       /* Confirm no work left behind accessing device structures */
>>       cancel_delayed_work_sync(&sched->work_tdr);
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel