[PATCH drm-next v2 04/16] maple_tree: add flag MT_FLAGS_LOCK_NONE

[Danilo Krummrich]

On 2/27/23 19:36, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 06:39:33PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>> On 2/21/23 19:31, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> Lockdep will shout at you if you get it wrong ;-)  But you can safely
>>> take the spinlock before calling mas_store_gfp(GFP_KERNEL) because
>>> mas_nomem() knows to drop the lock before doing a sleeping allocation.
>>> Essentially you're open-coding mtree_store_range() but doing your own
>>> thing in addition to the store.
>>
>> As already mentioned, I went with your advice to just take the maple tree's
>> internal spinlock within the GPUVA manager and leave all the other locking
>> to the drivers as intended.
>>
>> However, I run into the case that lockdep shouts at me for not taking the
>> spinlock before calling mas_find() in the iterator macros.
>>
>> Now, I definitely don't want to let the drivers take the maple tree's
>> spinlock before they use the iterator macro. Of course, drivers shouldn't
>> even know about the underlying maple tree of the GPUVA manager.
>>
>> One way to make lockdep happy in this case seems to be taking the spinlock
>> right before mas_find() and drop it right after for each iteration.
> 
> While we don't have any lockdep checking of this, you really shouldn't be
> using an iterator if you're going to drop the lock between invocations.
> The iterator points into the tree, so you need to invalidate the iterator
> any time you drop the lock.

The tree can't change either way in my case. Changes to the DRM GPUVA 
manager (and hence the tree) are protected by drivers, either by 
serializing tree accesses or by having another external lock ensuring 
mutual exclusion. Just as a reminder, in the latter case drivers usually 
lock multiple transactions to the manager (and hence the tree) to ensure 
they appear atomic.

So, really the only purpose for me taking the internal lock is to ensure 
I satisfy lockdep and the maple tree's internal requirements on locking 
for future use cases you mentioned (e.g. slab cache defragmentation).

It's the rcu_dereference_check() in mas_root() that triggers in my case:

[   28.745706] lib/maple_tree.c:851 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() 
usage!

                stack backtrace:
[   28.746057] CPU: 8 PID: 1518 Comm: nouveau_dma_cop Not tainted 
6.2.0-rc6-vmbind-0.2+ #104
[   28.746061] Hardware name: ASUS System Product Name/PRIME Z690-A, 
BIOS 2103 09/30/2022
[   28.746064] Call Trace:
[   28.746067]  <TASK>
[   28.746070]  dump_stack_lvl+0x5b/0x77
[   28.746077]  mas_walk+0x16d/0x1b0
[   28.746082]  mas_find+0xf7/0x300
[   28.746088]  drm_gpuva_in_region+0x63/0xa0
[   28.746099]  __drm_gpuva_sm_map.isra.0+0x465/0x9f0
[   28.746103]  ? lock_acquire+0xbf/0x2b0
[   28.746111]  ? __pfx_drm_gpuva_sm_step+0x10/0x10
[   28.746114]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xe3/0x140
[   28.746121]  ? mark_held_locks+0x49/0x80
[   28.746125]  ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x30/0x60
[   28.746138]  drm_gpuva_sm_map_ops_create+0x80/0xc0
[   28.746145]  uvmm_bind_job_submit+0x3c2/0x470 [nouveau]
[   28.746272]  nouveau_job_submit+0x60/0x450 [nouveau]
[   28.746393]  nouveau_uvmm_ioctl_vm_bind+0x179/0x1e0 [nouveau]
[   28.746510]  ? __pfx_nouveau_uvmm_ioctl_vm_bind+0x10/0x10 [nouveau]
[   28.746622]  drm_ioctl_kernel+0xa9/0x160
[   28.746629]  drm_ioctl+0x1f7/0x4b0

> 
> You don't have to use a spinlock to do a read iteration.  You can just
> take the rcu_read_lock() around your iteration, as long as you can
> tolerate the mild inconsistencies that RCU permits.
>

Doing that would mean that the driver needs to do it. However, the 
driver either needs to serialize accesses or use it's own mutex for 
protection for the above reasons. Hence, that should not be needed.