From: Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@intel.com>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@intel.com>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915/gt: update request engine before removing virtual GuC engine
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:18:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <daeb0906-1b39-ebda-618f-dbce88f751bc@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6f981dd3-715a-6b7e-6c5d-d51610cddc88@linux.intel.com>
On 11.07.2023 17:27, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 11/07/2023 14:58, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>> On 11.07.2023 13:34, Andi Shyti wrote:
>>> Hi Andrzej,
>>>
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 11
>>>> +++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git
>>>> a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>>> index a0e3ef1c65d246..2c877ea5eda6f0 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>>> @@ -3461,6 +3461,8 @@ static void guc_prio_fini(struct
>>>> i915_request *rq, struct intel_context *ce)
>>>> static void remove_from_context(struct i915_request *rq)
>>>> {
>>>> struct intel_context *ce =
>>>> request_to_scheduling_context(rq);
>>>> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
>>>> + intel_engine_mask_t tmp;
>>>>
>>>> GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_child(ce));
>>>>
>>>> @@ -3478,6 +3480,15 @@ static void
>>>> remove_from_context(struct i915_request *rq)
>>>>
>>>> atomic_dec(&ce->guc_id.ref);
>>>> i915_request_notify_execute_cb_imm(rq);
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * GuC virtual engine can disappear after this
>>>> call, so let's assign
>>>> + * something valid, as driver expects this to be
>>>> always valid pointer.
>>>> + */
>>>> + for_each_engine_masked(engine, rq->engine->gt,
>>>> rq->execution_mask, tmp) {
>>>> + rq->engine = engine;
>>>>
>>>> yes... here the context might lose the virtual engine... I wonder
>>>> whether this is the rigth solution, though. Maybe we should set
>>>> rq->engine = NULL; and check for NULL? Don't know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Setting NULL causes occasional null page de-reference in
>>>>
>>>> i915_request_wait_timeout:
>>>>
>>>> mutex_release(&rq->engine->gt->reset.mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_)
>>>>
>>>> rq->engine after removing rq from context is (IMHO) used as a set of
>>>> aliases
>>>> for gt and i915 (despite rq itself contains the alias to i915).
>>> without investigating further, but maybe that code is not even
>>> supposed to be executed, at this point, if the request's assigned
>>> virtual engine is removed.
>>
>> Real tests show it is executed and the function
>> i915_request_wait_timeout is quite generic
>> I guess it is quite typical use-case, the only question is about
>> timings - what happens earlier -
>> finalization of i915_request_wait_timeout or context removal.
>>
>> The other point rq->engine is accessed after context removal is
>> i915_fence_release -
>> there is long comment there regarding virtual context and reuse
>> retired rq.
>> Anyway calling there "intel_engine_is_virtual(rq->engine)" is risky
>> without this patch and KASAN complains clearly about it:
>> http://gfx-ci.igk.intel.com/tree/drm-tip/kasan.html?testfilter=gem_exec_balancer
>
> Looks like a bug introduced in bcb9aa45d5a0 ("Revert "drm/i915: Hold
> reference to intel_context over life of i915_request""), which was a
> partial revert of 1e98d8c52ed5 ("drm/i915: Hold reference to
> intel_context over life of i915_request").
>
> Ie. if 1e98d8c52ed5 recognised the problem with disappearing rq->engine,
> then I am confused how bcb9aa45d5a0 left the rq->engine dereference in
> there after removing the extra reference.
>
> Could it be that the intel_engine_is_virtual check simply needs to be
> removed from i915_fence_release, restoring things to how they were
> before 1e98d8c52ed5? Could you try it out?
I have already tried something similar [1] and KASAN bugs disappeared,
or more precisely gem_exec_balance tests passed. But I have been warned
by Nirmoy guc virtual engines can be created for only one real engine
(ie. is_power_of_2(rq->execution_mask) is true but rq->engine points to
virtual engine).
[1]: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/118879/
Regards
Andrzej
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-12 12:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-05 16:08 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: update request engine before removing virtual GuC engine Andrzej Hajda
2023-07-05 17:34 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.DOCS: warning for " Patchwork
2023-07-05 17:50 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2023-07-05 19:11 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2023-07-06 15:16 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] " Andrzej Hajda
2023-07-07 8:05 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-07-11 10:18 ` Andi Shyti
2023-07-11 11:12 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-07-11 11:34 ` Andi Shyti
2023-07-11 13:58 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-07-11 15:27 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-07-12 12:18 ` Andrzej Hajda [this message]
2023-07-12 12:35 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-07-12 16:27 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-07-12 18:54 ` John Harrison
2023-07-13 7:39 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-07-13 8:56 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-07-13 11:59 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-07-13 12:22 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-07-13 11:09 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-07-13 12:11 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-07-17 18:03 ` John Harrison
2023-07-18 15:48 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-07-19 10:41 ` Andrzej Hajda
2023-07-19 12:43 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-07-24 19:40 ` John Harrison
2023-07-06 20:01 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/gt: update request engine before removing virtual GuC engine (rev2) Patchwork
2023-07-06 20:13 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2023-07-07 2:52 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2023-07-10 12:51 ` Andrzej Hajda
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=daeb0906-1b39-ebda-618f-dbce88f751bc@intel.com \
--to=andrzej.hajda@intel.com \
--cc=andi.shyti@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris.p.wilson@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=nirmoy.das@intel.com \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox