From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: <sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev>
Cc: <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/gpuvm: allow locking external objects in two passes
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 01:18:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <an7PYrd8zDssAtAs@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260814075107.C2A4A1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org>
On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 07:51:07AM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
>
> New issues:
> - [Low] Missing WRITE_ONCE() for vm_bo->evicted causes a data race with a newly introduced lockless reader.
>
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [High] The xe driver bypasses drm_gpuvm_bo_evict() when clearing vm_bo->evicted, which permanently leaks the newly introduced num_evicted counter.
> --
>
> --- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/3] drm/gpuvm: allow locking external objects in two passes ---
> commit 8dc4616b6b0a651e19f9a8c0a513982ffa694e85
> Author: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
>
> drm/gpuvm: allow locking external objects in two passes
>
> This patch introduces an optimization to drm_gpuvm by allowing a split
> in the drm_exec transaction. It locks private and evicted objects first,
> then locks resident external objects later in a second pass. This reduces
> the time locks are held for resident shared objects during migration.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> > index d1c80ad3deadb..f6ec90640d372 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpuvm.c
> [ ... ]
> > @@ -1220,16 +1301,88 @@ drm_gpuvm_prepare_vm(struct drm_gpuvm *gpuvm,
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_gpuvm_prepare_vm);
> >
> [ ... ]
> > +static bool
> > +drm_gpuvm_prepare_skip(struct drm_gpuvm_bo *vm_bo,
> > + enum drm_gpuvm_exec_pass pass)
> > +{
> > + drm_gpuvm_pass_assert_held(vm_bo->vm, pass);
> > +
> > + switch (pass) {
> > + case DRM_GPUVM_EXEC_PASS_EARLY:
> > + vm_bo->lock_skipped = !READ_ONCE(vm_bo->evicted);
> > + break;
> > + case DRM_GPUVM_EXEC_PASS_LATE:
> [ ... ]
> > @@ -1959,6 +2389,11 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_gpuvm_bo_extobj_add);
> > * @evict: indicates whether the object is evicted
> > *
> > * Adds a &drm_gpuvm_bo to or removes it from the &drm_gpuvm's evicted list.
> > + *
> > + * An external object of a %DRM_GPUVM_RESV_PROTECTED &drm_gpuvm is the
> > + * exception: the evicted list is protected by the GPUVM's common dma-resv
> > + * there, which this does not hold, so such an object is only accounted for
> > + * and is put on the list later, by drm_gpuvm_prepare_objects().
> > */
> > void
> > drm_gpuvm_bo_evict(struct drm_gpuvm_bo *vm_bo, bool evict)
> > @@ -1966,6 +2401,7 @@ drm_gpuvm_bo_evict(struct drm_gpuvm_bo *vm_bo, bool evict)
> > struct drm_gpuvm *gpuvm = vm_bo->vm;
> > struct drm_gem_object *obj = vm_bo->obj;
> > bool lock = !drm_gpuvm_resv_protected(gpuvm);
> > + bool was_evicted = vm_bo->evicted;
> >
> > dma_resv_assert_held(obj->resv);
> > vm_bo->evicted = evict;
>
> [Severity: Low]
> Does this write need to use WRITE_ONCE()?
>
> This plain write pairs with the lockless READ_ONCE(vm_bo->evicted) added
> in drm_gpuvm_prepare_skip(). Without a WRITE_ONCE() here, KCSAN will report
> a data race.
>
Correct, look preexisting though. Will fix.
> > @@ -1974,8 +2410,16 @@ drm_gpuvm_bo_evict(struct drm_gpuvm_bo *vm_bo, bool evict)
> > * internal spinlocks, since in this case the evicted list is protected
> > * with the VM's common dma-resv lock.
> > */
> > - if (drm_gpuvm_is_extobj(gpuvm, obj) && !lock)
> > + if (drm_gpuvm_is_extobj(gpuvm, obj) && !lock) {
> > + /*
> > + * Count them instead, so drm_gpuvm_needs_two_pass() can tell
> > + * whether any are evicted without walking the list. The
> > + * object's dma-resv is held, so the transition is stable.
> > + */
> > + if (evict != was_evicted)
> > + atomic_add(evict ? 1 : -1, &gpuvm->extobj.num_evicted);
>
> [Severity: High]
> This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but the xe driver manually clears
> the evicted flag (vm_bo->evicted = false) during validation in
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c:xe_gpuvm_validate() instead of using the
> drm_gpuvm_bo_evict() API.
>
> Because drm_gpuvm_bo_evict() is bypassed for clearing the flag, this counter
> decrement will never execute for the xe driver. Does this mean the
> num_evicted counter will permanently leak, continuously incrementing and
> permanently forcing drm_gpuvm_needs_two_pass() to return true, thereby
> defeating the optimization?
Xe uses the drm_gpuvm_bo_evict API in the following patch when enabling
two-pass GPUVM locking. So correct, but non-issue in the context of the
series.
Matt
>
> > return;
> > + }
> >
> > if (evict)
> > drm_gpuvm_bo_list_add(vm_bo, evict, lock);
>
> --
> Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260814073258.893007-1-matthew.brost@intel.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-14 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-14 7:32 [PATCH 0/3] drm/gpuvm: two pass locking for exec Matthew Brost
2026-08-14 7:32 ` [PATCH 1/3] drm/gpuvm: allow locking external objects in two passes Matthew Brost
2026-08-14 7:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-14 8:18 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2026-08-14 7:32 ` [PATCH 2/3] drm/xe: lock the resident BOs of an exec last Matthew Brost
2026-08-14 7:32 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/panthor: lock the resident BOs of a submit last Matthew Brost
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=an7PYrd8zDssAtAs@gsse-cloud1.jf.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox