From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Paulo Zanoni" <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>,
"Francois Dugast" <francois.dugast@intel.com>,
"Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe: Fix missing runtime outer protection for ggtt_remove_node
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 16:15:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zln3o08O5Oz+SwQ3@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240531160205.206604-1-rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 12:02:05PM -0400, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> Defer the ggtt node removal to a thread if runtime_pm is not active.
>
> The ggtt node removal can be called from multiple places, including
> places where we cannot protect with outer callers and places we are
> within other locks. So, try to grab the runtime reference if the
> device is already active, otherwise defer the removal to a separate
> thread from where we are sure we can wake the device up.
>
> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> Cc: Francois Dugast <francois.dugast@intel.com>
> Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
> index b01a670fecb8..d63bf1a744b5 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
> @@ -443,16 +443,14 @@ int xe_ggtt_insert_bo(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct xe_bo *bo)
> return __xe_ggtt_insert_bo_at(ggtt, bo, 0, U64_MAX);
> }
>
> -void xe_ggtt_remove_node(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct drm_mm_node *node,
> - bool invalidate)
> +static void ggtt_remove_node(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct drm_mm_node *node,
> + bool invalidate)
> {
> struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(ggtt->tile);
> bool bound;
> int idx;
>
> bound = drm_dev_enter(&xe->drm, &idx);
> - if (bound)
> - xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume(xe);
>
> mutex_lock(&ggtt->lock);
> if (bound)
> @@ -467,10 +465,58 @@ void xe_ggtt_remove_node(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct drm_mm_node *node,
> if (invalidate)
> xe_ggtt_invalidate(ggtt);
>
> - xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> drm_dev_exit(idx);
> }
>
> +struct remove_node_work {
> + struct work_struct work;
> + struct xe_ggtt *ggtt;
> + struct drm_mm_node *node;
> + bool invalidate;
> +};
> +
> +static void ggtt_remove_node_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct remove_node_work *remove_node = container_of(work, struct remove_node_work, work);
> + struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(remove_node->ggtt->tile);
> +
> + xe_pm_runtime_get(xe);
> + ggtt_remove_node(remove_node->ggtt, remove_node->node, remove_node->invalidate);
> + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> +
> + kfree(remove_node);
> +}
> +
> +static void ggtt_queue_remove_node(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct drm_mm_node *node,
> + bool invalidate)
> +{
> + struct remove_node_work *remove_node;
> +
> + remove_node = kmalloc(sizeof(*remove_node), GFP_KERNEL);
Are we sure this code cannot be in an atomic context or in the path of a
dma-fence? If either of the former is true, then we cannot allocate
memory here. Alternatively, we could use GFP_ATOMIC or preallocate
'remove_node_work' as part of the initial GGTT node allocation. The
latter requires a bit more memory, but GGTT allocations are heavyweight
objects, and using a bit more memory seems fine to me. Also if we do the
later, maybe just add the node to a list and kick a dedicated work item
which process all nodes on the list.
> + if (!remove_node)
> + return;
> +
> + INIT_WORK(&remove_node->work, ggtt_remove_node_work_func);
> + remove_node->ggtt = ggtt;
> + remove_node->node = node;
> + remove_node->invalidate = invalidate;
> +
> + queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &remove_node->work);
I think we need to be careful with system wq usage. Recently we have had
two bugs [1][2] exposed in 6.9 in which we deadlocked by using system
wqs. I think it is likely safer to use a driver dedicated queue here.
Other than these questions, design of patch (try grabbing a PM, if we
can't defer to worker) LGTM.
Matt
[1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/133210/
[2] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/586095/?series=131904&rev=1
> +}
> +
> +void xe_ggtt_remove_node(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct drm_mm_node *node,
> + bool invalidate)
> +{
> + struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(ggtt->tile);
> +
> + if (xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(xe)) {
> + ggtt_remove_node(ggtt, node, invalidate);
> + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> + } else {
> + ggtt_queue_remove_node(ggtt, node, invalidate);
> + }
> +}
> +
> void xe_ggtt_remove_bo(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct xe_bo *bo)
> {
> if (XE_WARN_ON(!bo->ggtt_node.size))
> --
> 2.45.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-31 16:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-31 16:02 [PATCH] drm/xe: Fix missing runtime outer protection for ggtt_remove_node Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-31 16:08 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for " Patchwork
2024-05-31 16:08 ` ✓ CI.checkpatch: " Patchwork
2024-05-31 16:09 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2024-05-31 16:15 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2024-05-31 16:31 ` [PATCH] " Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-31 16:36 ` Matthew Brost
2024-05-31 16:21 ` ✓ CI.Build: success for " Patchwork
2024-05-31 16:21 ` ✗ CI.Hooks: failure " Patchwork
2024-05-31 16:22 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: success " Patchwork
2024-05-31 17:03 ` ✓ CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2024-05-31 18:19 ` ✗ CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-05-31 19:53 [PATCH] " Rodrigo Vivi
2024-05-31 20:08 Rodrigo Vivi
2024-06-03 13:25 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-06-03 18:15 ` Matthew Brost
2024-06-03 21:03 ` Thomas Hellström
2024-06-12 17:27 Rodrigo Vivi
2024-06-12 18:05 ` Matthew Brost
2024-06-12 18:20 Rodrigo Vivi
2024-06-13 9:06 ` Matthew Auld
2024-06-13 21:53 Rodrigo Vivi
2024-06-13 22:39 ` Matthew Brost
2024-06-14 14:29 ` Matthew Auld
2024-06-14 18:37 Rodrigo Vivi
2024-06-14 21:42 Rodrigo Vivi
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=Zln3o08O5Oz+SwQ3@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=francois.dugast@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@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