From: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 8/9] drm/xe: add lockdep annotation for xe_device_mem_access_get()
Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 18:57:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230524175701.320653-8-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230524175701.320653-1-matthew.auld@intel.com>
The atomics here might hide potential issues, so add a dummy lock with
the idea that xe_pm_runtime_resume() is eventually going to be called
when we are holding it. This only need to happen once and then lockdep
can validate all callers and their locks.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 8 ++++++++
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
index 695419a64ec0..2e246d7c2ba2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
@@ -224,6 +224,8 @@ struct xe_device *xe_device_create(struct pci_dev *pdev,
if (WARN_ON(err))
goto err_put;
+ drmm_mutex_init(&xe->drm, &xe->mem_access.lock);
+
return xe;
err_put:
@@ -436,6 +438,22 @@ void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe)
if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current)
return;
+ /*
+ * Since the resume here is synchronous it can be quite easy to deadlock
+ * if we are not careful. Also in practice it might be quite timing
+ * sensitive to ever see the 0 -> 1 transition with the callers locks
+ * held, so deadlocks might exist but are hard for lockdep to ever see.
+ * With this in mind, help lockdep learn about the potentially scary
+ * stuff that can happen inside the runtime_resume callback by acquiring
+ * a dummy lock (it doesn't protect anything and gets compiled out on
+ * non-debug builds). Lockdep then only needs to see the
+ * mem_access.lock -> runtime_resume callback once, and then can
+ * hopefully validate all the (callers_locks) -> mem_access.lock. For
+ * example if the (callers_locks) are ever grabbed in the runtime_resume
+ * callback, lockdep should give us a nice splat.
+ */
+ lock_map_acquire(&xe->mem_access.lock.dep_map);
+
if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&xe->mem_access.ref)) {
bool hold_rpm = xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get(xe);
int ref;
@@ -448,6 +466,8 @@ void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe)
} else {
XE_WARN_ON(atomic_read(&xe->mem_access.ref) == S32_MAX);
}
+
+ lock_map_release(&xe->mem_access.lock.dep_map);
}
void xe_device_mem_access_put(struct xe_device *xe)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
index 9e79857c267c..fa33b3093dba 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
@@ -260,6 +260,14 @@ struct xe_device {
* triggering additional actions when they occur.
*/
struct {
+ /**
+ * @lock: Dummy lock used as lockdep aid to hopefully ensure
+ * that lockep can more easily see any potential deadlocks when
+ * calling xe_device_mem_access_get().
+ *
+ * Doesn't protect anything.
+ */
+ struct mutex lock;
/** @ref: ref count of memory accesses */
atomic_t ref;
/** @hold_rpm: need to put rpm ref back at the end */
--
2.40.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-24 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-24 17:56 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 1/9] drm/xe: don't allocate under ct->lock Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 2/9] drm/xe: keep pulling mem_access_get further back Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 3/9] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from guc_ct_send Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 19:33 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 4/9] drm/xe/ggtt: prime ggtt->lock against FS_RECLAIM Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 5/9] drm/xe: drop xe_device_mem_access_get() from invalidation_vma Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 6/9] drm/xe: fix xe_device_mem_access_get() races Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 17:56 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 7/9] drm/xe/vm: tidy up xe_runtime_pm usage Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 19:30 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-24 17:57 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
2023-05-24 17:57 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v10 9/9] drm/xe/debugfs: grab mem_access around forcewake Matthew Auld
2023-05-24 19:32 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-24 18:33 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [v10,1/9] drm/xe: don't allocate under ct->lock Patchwork
2023-05-24 18:34 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2023-05-24 18:38 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-05-24 19:14 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " 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=20230524175701.320653-8-matthew.auld@intel.com \
--to=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@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