From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3721155316 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739785112; cv=none; b=iTqP5vZPlZiDgXZVc1IrEOLb7TccMottVPiaZZswanl5Kn0f/r3r+XVU5DTFOIahRtGv0P+QjdrmAwNNNViPJ9776NKGdJIudVVHBQS4tkzxlfSN1Bito/8uCQ9Ygjrfc6F32AyahHNqUrmi/9J5H3p6/a/P9TdUnd+IJwNUiO0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1739785112; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xH3Hy9dhQ6bLZ5I/SDFGnVKNoil9bC2Prv+SGWvQUR4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=IZEv7ItjLfFROGn0NceNqiVWU4CaVvLijG4SHvj9SfK+zlQu6JcOVuqnpP2W7qWiR6DYc/SLGvhAPjw+vNseQGX8k3P/lZdI7Smo/l+/8nUPId4JXgjCDct4JrkWFvh0EFpVxX0+hxR758lnsmGwY2CzV+/zDMjVveLXDJ0KYv0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=QbZjjzek; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="QbZjjzek" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1739785109; x=1771321109; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xH3Hy9dhQ6bLZ5I/SDFGnVKNoil9bC2Prv+SGWvQUR4=; b=QbZjjzek1501wnwYEpa0AvQa9Yg9Vz3nxj9fAeFmYn7KOwbRzWSVUc46 garkdNRRKda1lKgGnZV0/4Qo0ZqVKcJsbdR8WIX52B/29uG0B6BdRNmG7 NGxkSnLOMl5tMOzZ0YiuDdshFRmQMdINQ1P0/onHDSwz9gMu8WQ5FHZMV M77DEACNC/v8qDBrcA+LTOiSjyXtGl6FzAB1U7CAWg+SHKcbessjNQNQX C9sjOFG4N6szifkgd9QcJOElwjowqGIYJowX1/1l+iQN8+LRqIl6PpmEd mdxoj/Sn3oA/oo12xSnHNTMS3OWkClwPVfp1HZZ3LTMsFOiLUfszmlyNM g==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Urk2//JPRe+sVAqQumtZHA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: kXhBVf3rRkmZ2OBM0/sVNg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11347"; a="39648216" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,292,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="39648216" Received: from fmviesa007.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.147]) by fmvoesa113.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Feb 2025 01:38:29 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: uXo9fve3QeKgAjAFvN0Akw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: vFV/FOu/SjGBdlMfCgFiNw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,292,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="114048859" Received: from pgcooper-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.245.244.174]) ([10.245.244.174]) by fmviesa007-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Feb 2025 01:38:28 -0800 Message-ID: <6fec16d5-cbf3-448b-9c07-85a079095f62@intel.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:38:26 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] drm/xe/userptr: restore invalidation list on error To: Matthew Brost Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Hellstr=C3=B6m?= , stable@vger.kernel.org References: <20250214170527.272182-4-matthew.auld@intel.com> Content-Language: en-GB From: Matthew Auld In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 15/02/2025 01:28, Matthew Brost wrote: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 05:05:28PM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote: >> On error restore anything still on the pin_list back to the invalidation >> list on error. For the actual pin, so long as the vma is tracked on >> either list it should get picked up on the next pin, however it looks >> possible for the vma to get nuked but still be present on this per vm >> pin_list leading to corruption. An alternative might be then to instead >> just remove the link when destroying the vma. >> >> Fixes: ed2bdf3b264d ("drm/xe/vm: Subclass userptr vmas") >> Suggested-by: Matthew Brost >> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld >> Cc: Thomas Hellström >> Cc: # v6.8+ >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c >> index d664f2e418b2..668b0bde7822 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c >> @@ -670,12 +670,12 @@ int xe_vm_userptr_pin(struct xe_vm *vm) >> list_for_each_entry_safe(uvma, next, &vm->userptr.invalidated, >> userptr.invalidate_link) { >> list_del_init(&uvma->userptr.invalidate_link); >> - list_move_tail(&uvma->userptr.repin_link, >> - &vm->userptr.repin_list); >> + list_add_tail(&uvma->userptr.repin_link, >> + &vm->userptr.repin_list); > > Why this change? Just that with this patch the repin_link should now always be empty at this point, I think. add should complain if that is not the case. > >> } >> spin_unlock(&vm->userptr.invalidated_lock); >> >> - /* Pin and move to temporary list */ >> + /* Pin and move to bind list */ >> list_for_each_entry_safe(uvma, next, &vm->userptr.repin_list, >> userptr.repin_link) { >> err = xe_vma_userptr_pin_pages(uvma); >> @@ -691,10 +691,10 @@ int xe_vm_userptr_pin(struct xe_vm *vm) >> err = xe_vm_invalidate_vma(&uvma->vma); >> xe_vm_unlock(vm); >> if (err) >> - return err; >> + break; >> } else { >> - if (err < 0) >> - return err; >> + if (err) >> + break; >> >> list_del_init(&uvma->userptr.repin_link); >> list_move_tail(&uvma->vma.combined_links.rebind, >> @@ -702,7 +702,19 @@ int xe_vm_userptr_pin(struct xe_vm *vm) >> } >> } >> >> - return 0; >> + if (err) { >> + down_write(&vm->userptr.notifier_lock); > > Can you explain why you take the notifier lock here? I don't think this > required unless I'm missing something. For the invalidated list, the docs say: "Removing items from the list additionally requires @lock in write mode, and adding items to the list requires the @userptr.notifer_lock in write mode." Not sure if the docs needs to be updated here? > > Matt > >> + spin_lock(&vm->userptr.invalidated_lock); >> + list_for_each_entry_safe(uvma, next, &vm->userptr.repin_list, >> + userptr.repin_link) { >> + list_del_init(&uvma->userptr.repin_link); >> + list_move_tail(&uvma->userptr.invalidate_link, >> + &vm->userptr.invalidated); >> + } >> + spin_unlock(&vm->userptr.invalidated_lock); >> + up_write(&vm->userptr.notifier_lock); >> + } >> + return err; >> } >> >> /** >> -- >> 2.48.1 >>