From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] drm/xe: Split the bo shrinker into purgeable and non-purgeable shrinkers
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 13:53:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-174414@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016133523.3622-4-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] drm/xe: Use-After-Free of shrinker during DRM device teardown
- [High] drm/xe: O(N^2) CPU lockup in purgeable shrinker due to uncounted LRU skips
--
commit 1e9348c2fe4768de2cf24e4dd9b6188400c84043
Author: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
drm/xe: Split the bo shrinker into purgeable and non-purgeable shrinkers
This commit splits the single xe_shrinker into two independent shrinker
instances: one for purgeable objects and another for non-purgeable
(shrinkable) objects. This allows the shrinker core to apply different
reclaim pressures based on the varying costs of reclaiming these object
types.
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_shrinker.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_shrinker.c
> index 378022c37a57c..8e3fe675e0f34 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_shrinker.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_shrinker.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -216,63 +238,52 @@ static bool xe_shrinker_runtime_pm_get(struct xe_shrinker *shrinker, bool force,
[ ... ]
> -static unsigned long xe_shrinker_scan(struct shrinker *shrink, struct shrink_control *sc)
> +static unsigned long xe_shrinker_scan_purgeable(struct shrinker *shrink,
> + struct shrink_control *sc)
> {
> struct xe_shrinker *shrinker = to_xe_shrinker(shrink);
> struct ttm_operation_ctx ctx = {
> .interruptible = false,
> .no_wait_gpu = ttm_bo_shrink_avoid_wait(),
> };
> - unsigned long nr_to_scan, nr_scanned = 0, freed = 0;
> + unsigned long nr_to_scan = sc->nr_to_scan, nr_scanned = 0, freed = 0;
> struct xe_bo_shrink_flags shrink_flags = {
> .purge = true,
> - /* Don't request writeback without __GFP_IO. */
> - .writeback = !ctx.no_wait_gpu && (sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO),
> };
> - bool runtime_pm;
> - bool purgeable;
> - bool can_backup = !!(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS);
> -
> - nr_to_scan = sc->nr_to_scan;
> -
> - read_lock(&shrinker->lock);
> - purgeable = !!shrinker->purgeable_pages;
> - read_unlock(&shrinker->lock);
>
> - /* Might need runtime PM. Try to wake early if it looks like it. */
> - runtime_pm = xe_shrinker_runtime_pm_get(shrinker, false, nr_to_scan, can_backup);
> -
> - if (purgeable && nr_scanned < nr_to_scan)
> - xe_shrinker_walk(shrinker, &ctx, shrink_flags,
> - nr_to_scan, &nr_scanned, &freed);
> + xe_shrinker_walk(shrinker, &ctx, shrink_flags, nr_to_scan, &nr_scanned, &freed);
>
> sc->nr_scanned = nr_scanned;
[Severity: High]
Can this cause an O(N^2) CPU lockup in the purgeable shrinker?
When the memory reclaim core (do_shrink_slab) calls this purgeable scan
routine under memory pressure, xe_shrinker_walk() iterates the LRU list.
However, non-purgeable BOs return -EBUSY and are skipped without advancing
the scanned counter:
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:xe_bo_shrink() {
...
if (!(tt->page_flags & TTM_TT_FLAG_EXTERNAL_MAPPABLE) ||
(flags.purge && !xe_tt->purgeable))
return -EBUSY;
...
}
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_shrinker.c:__xe_shrinker_walk() {
...
lret = xe_bo_shrink(ctx, ttm_bo, flags, scanned);
/* Like the TTM LRU walk, skip bos we can't shrink now. */
if (lret == -EBUSY)
continue;
...
}
Since the LRU cursor is initialized locally on each call and non-purgeable
BOs do not increment nr_scanned, every batch rescans all leading
non-purgeable BOs without significantly advancing sc->nr_scanned.
Will this force the shrinker core to repeatedly call this function,
processing the same leading non-purgeable BOs over and over again?
> - if (nr_scanned >= nr_to_scan || !can_backup)
> - goto out;
>
> - /* If we didn't wake before, try to do it now if needed. */
> - if (!runtime_pm)
> - runtime_pm = xe_shrinker_runtime_pm_get(shrinker, true, 0, can_backup);
> + return nr_scanned ? freed : SHRINK_STOP;
> +}
[ ... ]
> @@ -294,6 +305,7 @@ static void xe_shrinker_fini(struct drm_device *drm, void *arg)
> xe_assert(shrinker->xe, !shrinker->purgeable_pages);
> xe_assert(shrinker->xe, !shrinker->populated_tts);
> shrinker_free(shrinker->shrink);
> + shrinker_free(shrinker->purge_shrink);
> flush_work(&shrinker->pm_worker);
> kfree(shrinker);
> }
[Severity: High]
Does this kfree(shrinker) leave xe->mem.shrinker as a dangling pointer?
Because drmm actions execute in LIFO order upon device release,
xe_shrinker_fini() is called before xe_device_destroy().
Later, xe_device_destroy() runs and calls xe_bo_dev_fini() which flushes
the async_free workqueue. Pending BOs in the workqueue will have their
final references dropped, leading to xe_ttm_tt_account_subtract():
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c:xe_ttm_tt_account_subtract() {
...
if (xe_tt->purgeable)
xe_shrinker_mod_pages(xe->mem.shrinker, 0, -(long)tt->num_pages, -1);
else
xe_shrinker_mod_pages(xe->mem.shrinker, -(long)tt->num_pages, 0, -1);
...
}
Can this lead to a use-after-free and memory corruption when driver unloads?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261016133523.3622-1-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com?part=3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-16 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-16 13:35 [PATCH v4 0/4] drm/xe: Adjust the bo shrinker batch size Thomas Hellström
2026-10-16 13:35 ` [PATCH v4 1/4] drm/xe: Don't abort the shrinker walk on -EBUSY Thomas Hellström
2026-10-16 13:44 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 13:55 ` Matthew Brost
2026-10-16 13:35 ` [PATCH v4 2/4] drm/xe: Track number of populated ttm_tts in the shrinker Thomas Hellström
2026-10-16 14:26 ` Matthew Brost
2026-10-16 13:35 ` [PATCH v4 3/4] drm/xe: Split the bo shrinker into purgeable and non-purgeable shrinkers Thomas Hellström
2026-10-16 13:53 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-16 14:09 ` Thomas Hellström
2026-10-16 18:41 ` Matthew Brost
2026-10-16 18:16 ` Matthew Brost
2026-10-16 13:35 ` [PATCH v4 4/4] drm/xe: Update non-purgeable shrinker batch size based on average BO size Thomas Hellström
2026-10-16 13:45 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16 14:06 ` Thomas Hellström
2026-10-16 18:42 ` Matthew Brost
2026-10-16 18:44 ` Matthew Brost
2026-10-16 13:45 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for drm/xe: Adjust the bo shrinker batch size (rev4) Patchwork
2026-10-16 14:37 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2026-10-16 22:14 ` ✓ Xe.CI.FULL: " 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=sashiko-outbox-174414@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--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