<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2024-01-02 15:08, Felix Kuehling
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20240102200804.68030-1-felix.kuehling@amd.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.5.0-kfd-fkuehlin #276 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kworker/8:2/2676 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff9435aae95c88 ((work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __flush_work+0x52/0x550
but task is already holding lock:
ffff9435cd8e1720 (&svms->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: svm_range_deferred_list_work+0xe8/0x340 [amdgpu]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (&svms->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__mutex_lock+0x97/0xd30
kfd_ioctl_alloc_memory_of_gpu+0x6d/0x3c0 [amdgpu]
kfd_ioctl+0x1b2/0x5d0 [amdgpu]
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x86/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x39/0x80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
-> #1 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}:
down_read+0x42/0x160
svm_range_evict_svm_bo_worker+0x8b/0x340 [amdgpu]
process_one_work+0x27a/0x540
worker_thread+0x53/0x3e0
kthread+0xeb/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x31/0x50
ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
-> #0 ((work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
__lock_acquire+0x1426/0x2200
lock_acquire+0xc1/0x2b0
__flush_work+0x80/0x550
__cancel_work_timer+0x109/0x190
svm_range_bo_release+0xdc/0x1c0 [amdgpu]
svm_range_free+0x175/0x180 [amdgpu]
svm_range_deferred_list_work+0x15d/0x340 [amdgpu]
process_one_work+0x27a/0x540
worker_thread+0x53/0x3e0
kthread+0xeb/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x31/0x50
ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
(work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work) --> &mm->mmap_lock --> &svms->lock
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(&svms->lock);
lock(&mm->mmap_lock);
lock(&svms->lock);
lock((work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work));
I believe this cannot really lead to a deadlock in practice, because
svm_range_evict_svm_bo_worker only takes the mmap_read_lock if the BO
refcount is non-0. That means it's impossible that svm_range_bo_release
is running concurrently. However, there is no good way to annotate this.
To avoid the problem, take a BO reference in
svm_range_schedule_evict_svm_bo instead of in the worker. That way it's
impossible for a BO to get freed while eviction work is pending and the
cancel_work_sync call in svm_range_bo_release can be eliminated.
v2: Use svm_bo_ref_unless_zero and explained why that's safe. Also
removed redundant checks that are already done in
amdkfd_fence_enable_signaling.
Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:felix.kuehling@amd.com"><felix.kuehling@amd.com></a></pre>
</blockquote>
Reviewed-by: Philip Yang <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:philip.yang@amd.com"><philip.yang@amd.com></a><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:20240102200804.68030-1-felix.kuehling@amd.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c | 26 ++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
index afd98aace065..6b314e4d3ae0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_svm.c
@@ -404,14 +404,9 @@ static void svm_range_bo_release(struct kref *kref)
spin_lock(&svm_bo->list_lock);
}
spin_unlock(&svm_bo->list_lock);
- if (!dma_fence_is_signaled(&svm_bo->eviction_fence->base)) {
- /* We're not in the eviction worker.
- * Signal the fence and synchronize with any
- * pending eviction work.
- */
+ if (!dma_fence_is_signaled(&svm_bo->eviction_fence->base))
+ /* We're not in the eviction worker. Signal the fence. */
dma_fence_signal(&svm_bo->eviction_fence->base);
- cancel_work_sync(&svm_bo->eviction_work);
- }
dma_fence_put(&svm_bo->eviction_fence->base);
amdgpu_bo_unref(&svm_bo->bo);
kfree(svm_bo);
@@ -3437,13 +3432,14 @@ svm_range_trigger_migration(struct mm_struct *mm, struct svm_range *prange,
int svm_range_schedule_evict_svm_bo(struct amdgpu_amdkfd_fence *fence)
{
- if (!fence)
- return -EINVAL;
-
- if (dma_fence_is_signaled(&fence->base))
- return 0;
-
- if (fence->svm_bo) {
+ /* Dereferencing fence->svm_bo is safe here because the fence hasn't
+ * signaled yet and we're under the protection of the fence->lock.
+ * After the fence is signaled in svm_range_bo_release, we cannot get
+ * here any more.
+ *
+ * Reference is dropped in svm_range_evict_svm_bo_worker.
+ */
+ if (svm_bo_ref_unless_zero(fence->svm_bo)) {
WRITE_ONCE(fence->svm_bo->evicting, 1);
schedule_work(&fence->svm_bo->eviction_work);
}
@@ -3458,8 +3454,6 @@ static void svm_range_evict_svm_bo_worker(struct work_struct *work)
int r = 0;
svm_bo = container_of(work, struct svm_range_bo, eviction_work);
- if (!svm_bo_ref_unless_zero(svm_bo))
- return; /* svm_bo was freed while eviction was pending */
if (mmget_not_zero(svm_bo->eviction_fence->mm)) {
mm = svm_bo->eviction_fence->mm;
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>