Re: [PATCH v2 17/23] PM / QoS: Fix constraints alloc vs reclaim locking

Rob Clark
2023-03-27T19:52:27Z

On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 10:53 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 3:45 PM Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>
> >
> > In the process of adding lockdep annotation for drm GPU scheduler's
> > job_run() to detect potential deadlock against shrinker/reclaim, I hit
> > this lockdep splat:
> >
> > ======================================================
> > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> > 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ #558 Tainted: G W
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> > ring0/125 is trying to acquire lock:
> > ffffffd6d6ce0f28 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68
> >
> > but task is already holding lock:
> > ffffff8087239208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178
> >
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >
> > -> #4 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> > __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8
> > mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44
> > msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178
> > msm_job_run+0x78/0x150
> > drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370
> > kthread+0xf0/0x100
> > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> >
> > -> #3 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}:
> > __dma_fence_might_wait+0x74/0xc0
> > dma_resv_lockdep+0x1f4/0x2f4
> > do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c
> > kernel_init+0x30/0x134
> > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> >
> > -> #2 (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x80/0xa8
> > slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c
> > __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc
> > __kmalloc+0xd8/0x100
> > topology_parse_cpu_capacity+0x8c/0x178
> > get_cpu_for_node+0x88/0xc4
> > parse_cluster+0x1b0/0x28c
> > parse_cluster+0x8c/0x28c
> > init_cpu_topology+0x168/0x188
> > smp_prepare_cpus+0x24/0xf8
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x18c/0x34c
> > kernel_init+0x30/0x134
> > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> >
> > -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> > __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x3c/0x48
> > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x54/0xa8
> > slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.0+0x40/0x25c
> > __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x60/0x1cc
> > kmalloc_trace+0x50/0xa8
> > dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate+0x38/0x100
> > __dev_pm_qos_add_request+0xb0/0x1e8
> > dev_pm_qos_add_request+0x58/0x80
> > dev_pm_qos_expose_latency_limit+0x60/0x13c
> > register_cpu+0x12c/0x130
> > topology_init+0xac/0xbc
> > do_one_initcall+0x104/0x2bc
> > kernel_init_freeable+0x344/0x34c
> > kernel_init+0x30/0x134
> > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> >
> > -> #0 (dev_pm_qos_mtx){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> > __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060
> > lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8
> > __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8
> > mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44
> > dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68
> > msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70
> > msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0
> > msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178
> > msm_job_run+0x78/0x150
> > drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370
> > kthread+0xf0/0x100
> > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> >
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> >
> > Chain exists of:
> > dev_pm_qos_mtx --> dma_fence_map --> &gpu->active_lock
> >
> > Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >
> > CPU0 CPU1
> > ---- ----
> > lock(&gpu->active_lock);
> > lock(dma_fence_map);
> > lock(&gpu->active_lock);
> > lock(dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> >
> > *** DEADLOCK ***
> >
> > 3 locks held by ring0/123:
> > #0: ffffff8087251170 (&gpu->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_job_run+0x64/0x150
> > #1: ffffffd00b0e57e8 (dma_fence_map){++++}-{0:0}, at: msm_job_run+0x68/0x150
> > #2: ffffff8087251208 (&gpu->active_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: msm_gpu_submit+0xec/0x178
> >
> > stack backtrace:
> > CPU: 6 PID: 123 Comm: ring0 Not tainted 6.2.0-rc8-debug+ #559
> > Hardware name: Google Lazor (rev1 - 2) with LTE (DT)
> > Call trace:
> > dump_backtrace.part.0+0xb4/0xf8
> > show_stack+0x20/0x38
> > dump_stack_lvl+0x9c/0xd0
> > dump_stack+0x18/0x34
> > print_circular_bug+0x1b4/0x1f0
> > check_noncircular+0x78/0xac
> > __lock_acquire+0xe00/0x1060
> > lock_acquire+0x1e0/0x2f8
> > __mutex_lock+0xcc/0x3c8
> > mutex_lock_nested+0x30/0x44
> > dev_pm_qos_update_request+0x38/0x68
> > msm_devfreq_boost+0x40/0x70
> > msm_devfreq_active+0xc0/0xf0
> > msm_gpu_submit+0x10c/0x178
> > msm_job_run+0x78/0x150
> > drm_sched_main+0x290/0x370
> > kthread+0xf0/0x100
> > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> >
> > The issue is that dev_pm_qos_mtx is held in the runpm suspend/resume (or
> > freq change) path, but it is also held across allocations that could
> > recurse into shrinker.
> >
> > Solve this by changing dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate() into a function
> > that can be called unconditionally before the device qos object is
> > needed and before aquiring dev_pm_qos_mtx. This way the allocations can
> > be done without holding the mutex. In the case that we raced with
> > another thread to allocate the qos object, detect this *after* acquiring
> > the dev_pm_qos_mtx and simply free the redundant allocations.
>
> Honestly, I don't like this approach.
>
> In particular, dropping a lock just in order to grab it again right
> away is really confusing (and I'm not even sure it is correct ATM).

This patch isn't actually doing that. (And you are right, if it were,
that would be a thing to be suspicious of)

It is just moving the allocations ahead of the locking.

> Let me think about how to possibly address the issue at hand in a different way.

Per device locking would make this easier. But I suppose that gets
into needing ww_mutex when you have things like device_link?

BR,
-R

> > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/power/qos.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/qos.c b/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> > index 8e93167f1783..f3e0c6b65635 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/qos.c
> > @@ -185,18 +185,24 @@ static int apply_constraint(struct dev_pm_qos_request *req,
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate
> > + * dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated
> > * @dev: device to allocate data for
> > *
> > - * Called at the first call to add_request, for constraint data allocation
> > - * Must be called with the dev_pm_qos_mtx mutex held
> > + * Called to ensure that devices qos is allocated, before acquiring
> > + * dev_pm_qos_mtx.
> > */
> > -static int dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(struct device *dev)
> > +static int dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > struct dev_pm_qos *qos;
> > struct pm_qos_constraints *c;
> > struct blocking_notifier_head *n;
> >
> > + if (!dev)
> > + return -ENODEV;
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->power.qos))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > qos = kzalloc(sizeof(*qos), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!qos)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -227,10 +233,26 @@ static int dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(struct device *dev)
> >
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&qos->flags.list);
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->power.qos)) {
> > + /*
> > + * We have raced with another task to create the qos.
> > + * No biggie, just free the resources we've allocated
> > + * outside of dev_pm_qos_mtx and move on with life.
> > + */
> > + kfree(n);
> > + kfree(qos);
> > + goto unlock;
> > + }
> > +
> > spin_lock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> > dev->power.qos = qos;
> > spin_unlock_irq(&dev->power.lock);
> >
> > +unlock:
> > + mutex_unlock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -331,17 +353,15 @@ static int __dev_pm_qos_add_request(struct device *dev,
> > {
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - if (!dev || !req || dev_pm_qos_invalid_req_type(dev, type))
> > + if (!req || dev_pm_qos_invalid_req_type(dev, type))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > if (WARN(dev_pm_qos_request_active(req),
> > "%s() called for already added request\n", __func__))
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > - if (IS_ERR(dev->power.qos))
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->power.qos))
> > ret = -ENODEV;
> > - else if (!dev->power.qos)
> > - ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(dev);
> >
> > trace_dev_pm_qos_add_request(dev_name(dev), type, value);
> > if (ret)
> > @@ -390,6 +410,10 @@ int dev_pm_qos_add_request(struct device *dev, struct dev_pm_qos_request *req,
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > + ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated(dev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> > ret = __dev_pm_qos_add_request(dev, req, type, value);
> > mutex_unlock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> > @@ -537,15 +561,11 @@ int dev_pm_qos_add_notifier(struct device *dev, struct notifier_block *notifier,
> > {
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> > -
> > - if (IS_ERR(dev->power.qos))
> > - ret = -ENODEV;
> > - else if (!dev->power.qos)
> > - ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_allocate(dev);
> > -
> > + ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated(dev);
> > if (ret)
> > - goto unlock;
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> >
> > switch (type) {
> > case DEV_PM_QOS_RESUME_LATENCY:
> > @@ -565,7 +585,6 @@ int dev_pm_qos_add_notifier(struct device *dev, struct notifier_block *notifier,
> > ret = -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > -unlock:
> > mutex_unlock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > @@ -905,10 +924,13 @@ int dev_pm_qos_update_user_latency_tolerance(struct device *dev, s32 val)
> > {
> > int ret;
> >
> > + ret = dev_pm_qos_constraints_ensure_allocated(dev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > mutex_lock(&dev_pm_qos_mtx);
> >
> > - if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(dev->power.qos)
> > - || !dev->power.qos->latency_tolerance_req) {
> > + if (!dev->power.qos->latency_tolerance_req) {
> > struct dev_pm_qos_request *req;
> >
> > if (val < 0) {
> > --