From: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
To: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
ML dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 32/70] drm/i915: Prepare for obj->mm.lock removal, v2.
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 21:25:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64a3b9deb781533d391be6677aa5c604ce6c7e47.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM0jSHM+kzJx3ELVPeZXFMYYZ+0qASfczXOLVZ79zx2Tq28oxw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 2021-03-23 at 16:18 +0000, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 at 15:52, Maarten Lankhorst
> <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@intel.com>
> >
> > Stolen objects need to lock, and we may call put_pages when
> > refcount drops to 0, ensure all calls are handled correctly.
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Rebase on top of upstream changes.
> >
> > Idea-from: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst
> > <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pages.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> > index 983f2d4b2a85..74de195b57de 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
> > @@ -144,6 +144,20 @@ i915_gem_object_put(struct drm_i915_gem_object
> > *obj)
> >
> > #define assert_object_held(obj) dma_resv_assert_held((obj)-
> > >base.resv)
> >
> > +/*
> > + * If more than one potential simultaneous locker, assert held.
> > + */
> > +static inline void assert_object_held_shared(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Note mm list lookup is protected by
>
> What is meant with mm list here? Maybe just a stale comment?
That would be the i915->mm lists, (shrink and purge).
>
> > + * kref_get_unless_zero().
> > + */
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) &&
> > + kref_read(&obj->base.refcount) > 0)
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&obj->mm.lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > static inline int __i915_gem_object_lock(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > struct i915_gem_ww_ctx
> > *ww,
> > bool intr)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pages.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pages.c
> > index a24617af3c93..2d0065fa6e80 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pages.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_pages.c
> > @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ void __i915_gem_object_set_pages(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > bool shrinkable;
> > int i;
> >
> > - lockdep_assert_held(&obj->mm.lock);
> > + assert_object_held_shared(obj);
> >
> > if (i915_gem_object_is_volatile(obj))
> > obj->mm.madv = I915_MADV_DONTNEED;
> > @@ -70,6 +70,7 @@ void __i915_gem_object_set_pages(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> > struct list_head *list;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&obj->mm.lock);
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&i915->mm.obj_lock, flags);
> >
> > i915->mm.shrink_count++;
> > @@ -91,6 +92,8 @@ int ____i915_gem_object_get_pages(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = to_i915(obj->base.dev);
> > int err;
> >
> > + assert_object_held_shared(obj);
> > +
> > if (unlikely(obj->mm.madv != I915_MADV_WILLNEED)) {
> > drm_dbg(&i915->drm,
> > "Attempting to obtain a purgeable
> > object\n");
> > @@ -118,6 +121,8 @@ int __i915_gem_object_get_pages(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > if (err)
> > return err;
> >
> > + assert_object_held_shared(obj);
> > +
> > if (unlikely(!i915_gem_object_has_pages(obj))) {
> > GEM_BUG_ON(i915_gem_object_has_pinned_pages(obj));
> >
> > @@ -145,7 +150,7 @@ void i915_gem_object_truncate(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > /* Try to discard unwanted pages */
> > void i915_gem_object_writeback(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > {
> > - lockdep_assert_held(&obj->mm.lock);
> > + assert_object_held_shared(obj);
> > GEM_BUG_ON(i915_gem_object_has_pages(obj));
> >
> > if (obj->ops->writeback)
> > @@ -176,6 +181,8 @@ __i915_gem_object_unset_pages(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > {
> > struct sg_table *pages;
> >
> > + assert_object_held_shared(obj);
> > +
> > pages = fetch_and_zero(&obj->mm.pages);
> > if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(pages))
> > return pages;
> > @@ -203,6 +210,9 @@ int __i915_gem_object_put_pages_locked(struct
> > drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> > if (i915_gem_object_has_pinned_pages(obj))
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > + /* May be called by shrinker from within get_pages() (on
> > another bo) */
> > + assert_object_held_shared(obj);
> > +
> > i915_gem_object_release_mmap_offset(obj);
> >
> > /*
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > index 7cdb32d881d9..b0597de206de 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_stolen.c
> > @@ -637,13 +637,15 @@ static int
> > __i915_gem_object_create_stolen(struct intel_memory_region *mem,
> > cache_level = HAS_LLC(mem->i915) ? I915_CACHE_LLC :
> > I915_CACHE_NONE;
> > i915_gem_object_set_cache_coherency(obj, cache_level);
> >
> > - err = i915_gem_object_pin_pages(obj);
> > - if (err)
> > - return err;
> > + if (WARN_ON(!i915_gem_object_trylock(obj)))
> > + return -EBUSY;
> >
> > - i915_gem_object_init_memory_region(obj, mem);
> > + err = i915_gem_object_pin_pages(obj);
> > + if (!err)
> > + i915_gem_object_init_memory_region(obj, mem);
>
> Probably more consistent to call init_memory_region() before calling
> pin_pages(), but I guess it was already like that, plus it doesn't
> seem to matter for stolen memory.
Yes, I agree, Probably a rebasing error? In the DG1 enabling code we
add the object to the relevant region mm lists during get_pages(), and
to do that the region needs to be initialized.
/Thomas
>
> Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-23 20:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-23 15:49 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 00/70] drm/i915: Remove obj->mm.lock! Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 01/70] drm/i915: Do not share hwsp across contexts any more, v8 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 02/70] drm/i915: Pin timeline map after first timeline pin, v4 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 03/70] drm/i915: Move cmd parser pinning to execbuffer Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 04/70] drm/i915: Add missing -EDEADLK handling to execbuf pinning, v2 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 05/70] drm/i915: Ensure we hold the object mutex in pin correctly Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 06/70] drm/i915: Add gem object locking to madvise Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 07/70] drm/i915: Move HAS_STRUCT_PAGE to obj->flags Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 08/70] drm/i915: Rework struct phys attachment handling Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 09/70] drm/i915: Convert i915_gem_object_attach_phys() to ww locking, v2 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:49 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 10/70] drm/i915: make lockdep slightly happier about execbuf Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 11/70] drm/i915: Disable userptr pread/pwrite support Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 13:57 ` Jason Ekstrand
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 12/70] drm/i915: No longer allow exporting userptr through dma-buf Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 13/70] drm/i915: Reject more ioctls for userptr, v2 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 14/70] drm/i915: Reject UNSYNCHRONIZED " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 15/70] drm/i915: Make compilation of userptr code depend on MMU_NOTIFIER Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 16/70] drm/i915: Fix userptr so we do not have to worry about obj->mm.lock, v7 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 11:28 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-24 11:34 ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2021-03-25 9:23 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix userptr so we do not have to worry about obj->mm.lock, v8 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-25 9:55 ` Thomas Hellström (Intel)
2021-03-25 10:27 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 17/70] drm/i915: Flatten obj->mm.lock Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 11:13 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 18/70] drm/i915: Populate logical context during first pin Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 19/70] drm/i915: Make ring submission compatible with obj->mm.lock removal, v2 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 20/70] drm/i915: Handle ww locking in init_status_page Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 21/70] drm/i915: Rework clflush to work correctly without obj->mm.lock Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 22/70] drm/i915: Pass ww ctx to intel_pin_to_display_plane Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 23/70] drm/i915: Add object locking to vm_fault_cpu Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 24/70] drm/i915: Move pinning to inside engine_wa_list_verify() Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 25/70] drm/i915: Take reservation lock around i915_vma_pin Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 12:35 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 26/70] drm/i915: Make lrc_init_wa_ctx compatible with ww locking, v3 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 27/70] drm/i915: Make __engine_unpark() compatible with ww locking Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 12:37 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 28/70] drm/i915: Take obj lock around set_domain ioctl Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 14:12 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 29/70] drm/i915: Defer pin calls in buffer pool until first use by caller Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 30/70] drm/i915: Fix pread/pwrite to work with new locking rules Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 14:45 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 31/70] drm/i915: Fix workarounds selftest, part 1 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 16:16 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 32/70] drm/i915: Prepare for obj->mm.lock removal, v2 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 16:18 ` Matthew Auld
2021-03-23 20:25 ` Thomas Hellström [this message]
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 33/70] drm/i915: Add igt_spinner_pin() to allow for ww locking around spinner Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 34/70] drm/i915: Add ww locking around vm_access() Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 16:21 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 35/70] drm/i915: Increase ww locking for perf Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 36/70] drm/i915: Lock ww in ucode objects correctly Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 37/70] drm/i915: Add ww locking to dma-buf ops, v2 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 38/70] drm/i915: Add missing ww lock in intel_dsb_prepare Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 39/70] drm/i915: Fix ww locking in shmem_create_from_object Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 40/70] drm/i915: Use a single page table lock for each gtt Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 41/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare huge_pages testcases for obj->mm.lock removal Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 42/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare client blit " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 43/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare coherency tests " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 44/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare context " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 16:40 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 45/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare dma-buf " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 46/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare execbuf " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 47/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare mman testcases " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 48/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare object tests " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 49/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare object blit " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 50/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare igt_gem_utils " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 51/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare context selftest " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 52/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare hangcheck " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 53/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare execlists and lrc selftests " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 54/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare mocs tests " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 55/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare ring submission " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 56/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare timeline tests " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 57/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare i915_request " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 58/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare memory region " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 59/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare cs engine " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 60/70] drm/i915/selftests: Prepare gtt " Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 61/70] drm/i915: Finally remove obj->mm.lock Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 62/70] drm/i915: Keep userpointer bindings if seqcount is unchanged, v2 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 63/70] drm/i915: Move gt_revoke() slightly Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 17:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-24 17:15 ` Ville Syrjälä
2021-03-24 17:16 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-24 17:58 ` Ville Syrjälä
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 64/70] drm/i915: Add missing -EDEADLK path in execbuffer ggtt pinning Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 17:05 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 65/70] drm/i915: Fix pin_map in scheduler selftests Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 17:14 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 66/70] drm/i915: Add ww parameter to get_pages() callback Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 17:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 67/70] drm/i915: Add ww context to prepare_(read/write) Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 68/70] drm/i915: Pass ww ctx to pin_map Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 17:30 ` Matthew Auld
2021-03-24 9:31 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 10:11 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-24 11:54 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Pass ww ctx to pin_map, v2 Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 69/70] drm/i915: Pass ww ctx to i915_gem_object_pin_pages Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-23 15:50 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v9 70/70] drm/i915: Remove asynchronous vma binding Maarten Lankhorst
2021-03-24 17:19 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-03-23 16:07 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Remove obj->mm.lock! (rev18) Patchwork
2021-03-23 16:09 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2021-03-23 16:12 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.DOCS: " Patchwork
2021-03-23 16:35 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2021-03-24 12:44 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915: Remove obj->mm.lock! (rev19) Patchwork
2021-03-24 12:46 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2021-03-24 12:49 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.DOCS: " Patchwork
2021-03-24 13:13 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure " Patchwork
2021-03-25 21:28 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for drm/i915: Remove obj->mm.lock! (rev20) 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=64a3b9deb781533d391be6677aa5c604ce6c7e47.camel@linux.intel.com \
--to=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=matthew.william.auld@gmail.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