Re: [PATCH v3] drm/xe/ufence: Signal ufence immediately when possible

[Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>]

On 10/18/2024 6:16 PM, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2024 at 05:29:09PM +0200, Nirmoy Das wrote:
>> On 10/18/2024 4:53 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
>>> On 18/10/2024 15:40, Nirmoy Das wrote:
>>>> On 10/18/2024 4:23 PM, Matthew Auld wrote:
>>>>> On 18/10/2024 13:47, Nirmoy Das wrote:
>>>>>> If the backing fence is signaled then signal ufence immediately.
>>>>>> This should reduce load from the xe ordered_wq and also won't block
>>>>>> signaling a ufence which doesn't require any serialization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2: fix system_wq typo
>>>>>> v3: signal immediately instead of queuing in system_wq (Matt B)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Link: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/1630
>>>>>> Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
>>>>>> gc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
>>>>> s/gc/Cc
>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sync.c | 15 +++++++++++----
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sync.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sync.c
>>>>>> index c6cf227ead40..069c1e4ebea5 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sync.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_sync.c
>>>>>> @@ -72,10 +72,8 @@ static struct xe_user_fence *user_fence_create(struct xe_device *xe, u64 addr,
>>>>>>        return ufence;
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>    -static void user_fence_worker(struct work_struct *w)
>>>>>> +static void signal_user_fence(struct xe_user_fence *ufence)
>>>>>>    {
>>>>>> -    struct xe_user_fence *ufence = container_of(w, struct xe_user_fence, worker);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>        if (mmget_not_zero(ufence->mm)) {
>>>>>>            kthread_use_mm(ufence->mm);
>>>>>>            if (copy_to_user(ufence->addr, &ufence->value, sizeof(ufence->value)))
>>>>> This can end up in a CPU fault handler? There might be some locking issues if caller is say holding dma-resv. For example the caller in xe_exec which is holding dma-resv. If it can indeed hit this path, then we might get some splats/deadlocks, I think.
>>>>
>>>> What is the connection between writting into ufence addr  and dma-resv  ? Trying to understand this locking problem.
>>> Basically the user can have the ufence be an mmap address from a BO, so it can basically hit xe_gem_fault() here. The mmap lock should already be tainted with dma-resv, so might_fault() should complain.
>>
>> I see what you mean, haven't thought about it.
>>
> Thanks for catching this, forgot this was one of points of worker - to
> avoid this locking inversion.
>
> Nirmoy while you are here, can you add a comment indicating this so we
> don't forget again?
Added in v4.
>
>>>>
>>>> it looks like I have to use a worker anyway to do kthread_use_mm(), https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/intel-xe/xe-pw-140169v1/bat-atsm-2/igt@xe_exec_balancer@no-exec-cm-virtual-basic.html
>>> Yes, exactly that just with might_fault() in copy_to_user. Good to see that CI caught this. From the logs we can also see the exact dma-resv splat as per above:
>> Back to the previous rev but with the bool as suggested by Matt B.

I meant without the bool.


>>
> Fine with that. Sorry for the noise.

No problem at all.


Thanks,

Nirmoy

>
> Matt
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Nirmoy
>>
>>
>>> 4> [233.110447] xe_exec_balance/3613 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> <4> [233.110457] ff11000100085998 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}, at: __might_fault+0x43/0x90
>>> <4> [233.110481]
>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>> <4> [233.110491] ff110001231a1da0 (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: drm_exec_lock_obj+0x88/0x2b0 [drm_exec]
>>> <4> [233.110517]
>>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>> <4> [233.110530]
>>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>> <4> [233.110540]
>>> -> #2 (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
>>> <4> [233.110558]        __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.0+0xe1/0x14d0
>>> <4> [233.110574]        ww_mutex_lock+0x3c/0xa0
>>> <4> [233.110586]        dma_resv_lockdep+0x1a4/0x340
>>> <4> [233.110599]        do_one_initcall+0x76/0x3e0
>>> <4> [233.110615]        kernel_init_freeable+0x3dc/0x690
>>> <4> [233.110632]        kernel_init+0x1b/0x200
>>> <4> [233.110645]        ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x60
>>> <4> [233.110658]        ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>>> <4> [233.110671]
>>> -> #1 (reservation_ww_class_acquire){+.+.}-{0:0}:
>>> <4> [233.110689]        dma_resv_lockdep+0x180/0x340
>>> <4> [233.110699]        do_one_initcall+0x76/0x3e0
>>> <4> [233.110713]        kernel_init_freeable+0x3dc/0x690
>>> <4> [233.110728]        kernel_init+0x1b/0x200
>>> <4> [233.110740]        ret_from_fork+0x3a/0x60
>>> <4> [233.110752]        ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>>> <4> [233.110764]
>>> -> #0 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}:
>>> <4> [233.110780]        __lock_acquire+0x1623/0x2800
>>> <4> [233.110794]        lock_acquire+0xc5/0x2f0
>>> <4> [233.110807]        __might_fault+0x63/0x90
>>> <4> [233.110818]        _copy_to_user+0x23/0x70
>>> <4> [233.110830]        signal_user_fence+0x46/0xd0 [xe]
>>> <4> [233.111108]        xe_sync_entry_signal+0x14e/0x1b0 [xe]
>>> <4> [233.111366]        vm_bind_ioctl_ops_execute+0x3f8/0x910 [xe]
>>> <4> [233.111665]        xe_vm_bind_ioctl+0x1623/0x22a0 [xe]
>>> <4> [233.111951]        drm_ioctl_kernel+0xb1/0x120 [drm]
>>> <4> [233.112052]        drm_ioctl+0x2e8/0x5a0 [drm]
>>> <4> [233.112140]        xe_drm_ioctl+0x53/0x80 [xe]
>>> <4> [233.112331]        __x64_sys_ioctl+0x95/0xd0
>>> <4> [233.112342]        x64_sys_call+0x1089/0x2060
>>> <4> [233.112355]        do_syscall_64+0x87/0x140
>>> <4> [233.112365]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
>>> <4> [233.112380]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Nirmoy
>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -89,6 +87,14 @@ static void user_fence_worker(struct work_struct *w)
>>>>>>        user_fence_put(ufence);
>>>>>>    }
>>>>>>    +static void user_fence_worker(struct work_struct *w)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> +    struct xe_user_fence *ufence = container_of(w, struct xe_user_fence,
>>>>>> +                            worker);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    signal_user_fence(ufence);
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>    static void kick_ufence(struct xe_user_fence *ufence, struct dma_fence *fence)
>>>>>>    {
>>>>>>        INIT_WORK(&ufence->worker, user_fence_worker);
>>>>>> @@ -236,7 +242,8 @@ void xe_sync_entry_signal(struct xe_sync_entry *sync, struct dma_fence *fence)
>>>>>>            err = dma_fence_add_callback(fence, &sync->ufence->cb,
>>>>>>                             user_fence_cb);
>>>>>>            if (err == -ENOENT) {
>>>>>> -            kick_ufence(sync->ufence, fence);
>>>>>> +            /* signal the ufence immediately if fence is already signalled */
>>>>>> +            signal_user_fence(sync->ufence);
>>>>>>            } else if (err) {
>>>>>>                XE_WARN_ON("failed to add user fence");
>>>>>>                user_fence_put(sync->ufence);