[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Avoid circular locking dependency when flush delayed work on gt reset
John Harrison
john.c.harrison at intel.com
Wed Jun 7 20:17:22 UTC 2023
On 6/7/2023 12:03, Zhanjun Dong wrote:
> This attempts to avoid circular locking dependency between flush delayed work and intel_gt_reset.
> Switched from cancel_delayed_work_sync to cancel_delayed_work, the non-sync version for reset path, it is safe as the worker has the trylock code to handle the lock; Meanwhile keep the sync version for park/fini to ensure the worker is not still running during suspend or shutdown.
>
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 6.4.0-rc1-drmtip_1340-g31e3463b0edb+ #1 Not tainted
> ------------------------------------------------------
> kms_pipe_crc_ba/6415 is trying to acquire lock:
> ffff88813e6cc640 ((work_completion)(&(&guc->timestamp.work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __flush_work+0x42/0x530
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> ffff88813e6cce90 (>->reset.mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: intel_gt_reset+0x19e/0x470 [i915]
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #3 (>->reset.mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> lock_acquire+0xd8/0x2d0
> i915_gem_shrinker_taints_mutex+0x31/0x50 [i915]
> intel_gt_init_reset+0x65/0x80 [i915]
> intel_gt_common_init_early+0xe1/0x170 [i915]
> intel_root_gt_init_early+0x48/0x60 [i915]
> i915_driver_probe+0x671/0xcb0 [i915]
> i915_pci_probe+0xdc/0x210 [i915]
> pci_device_probe+0x95/0x120
> really_probe+0x164/0x3c0
> __driver_probe_device+0x73/0x160
> driver_probe_device+0x19/0xa0
> __driver_attach+0xb6/0x180
> bus_for_each_dev+0x77/0xd0
> bus_add_driver+0x114/0x210
> driver_register+0x5b/0x110
> __pfx_vgem_open+0x3/0x10 [vgem]
> do_one_initcall+0x57/0x270
> do_init_module+0x5f/0x220
> load_module+0x1ca4/0x1f00
> __do_sys_finit_module+0xb4/0x130
> do_syscall_64+0x3c/0x90
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
>
> -> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> lock_acquire+0xd8/0x2d0
> fs_reclaim_acquire+0xac/0xe0
> kmem_cache_alloc+0x32/0x260
> i915_vma_instance+0xb2/0xc60 [i915]
> i915_gem_object_ggtt_pin_ww+0x175/0x370 [i915]
> vm_fault_gtt+0x22d/0xf60 [i915]
> __do_fault+0x2f/0x1d0
> do_pte_missing+0x4a/0xd20
> __handle_mm_fault+0x5b0/0x790
> handle_mm_fault+0xa2/0x230
> do_user_addr_fault+0x3ea/0xa10
> exc_page_fault+0x68/0x1a0
> asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30
>
> -> #1 (>->reset.backoff_srcu){++++}-{0:0}:
> lock_acquire+0xd8/0x2d0
> _intel_gt_reset_lock+0x57/0x330 [i915]
> guc_timestamp_ping+0x35/0x130 [i915]
> process_one_work+0x250/0x510
> worker_thread+0x4f/0x3a0
> kthread+0xff/0x130
> ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
>
> -> #0 ((work_completion)(&(&guc->timestamp.work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> check_prev_add+0x90/0xc60
> __lock_acquire+0x1998/0x2590
> lock_acquire+0xd8/0x2d0
> __flush_work+0x74/0x530
> __cancel_work_timer+0x14f/0x1f0
> intel_guc_submission_reset_prepare+0x81/0x4b0 [i915]
> intel_uc_reset_prepare+0x9c/0x120 [i915]
> reset_prepare+0x21/0x60 [i915]
> intel_gt_reset+0x1dd/0x470 [i915]
> intel_gt_reset_global+0xfb/0x170 [i915]
> intel_gt_handle_error+0x368/0x420 [i915]
> intel_gt_debugfs_reset_store+0x5c/0xc0 [i915]
> i915_wedged_set+0x29/0x40 [i915]
> simple_attr_write_xsigned.constprop.0+0xb4/0x110
> full_proxy_write+0x52/0x80
> vfs_write+0xc5/0x4f0
> ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
> do_syscall_64+0x3c/0x90
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
> Chain exists of:
> (work_completion)(&(&guc->timestamp.work)->work) --> fs_reclaim --> >->reset.mutex
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(>->reset.mutex);
> lock(fs_reclaim);
> lock(>->reset.mutex);
> lock((work_completion)(&(&guc->timestamp.work)->work));
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
> 3 locks held by kms_pipe_crc_ba/6415:
> #0: ffff888101541430 (sb_writers#15){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
> #1: ffff888136c7eab8 (&attr->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: simple_attr_write_xsigned.constprop.0+0x47/0x110
> #2: ffff88813e6cce90 (>->reset.mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: intel_gt_reset+0x19e/0x470 [i915]
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhanjun Dong<zhanjun.dong at intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 15 +++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> index a0e3ef1c65d2..cca6960d3490 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> @@ -1357,9 +1357,12 @@ static void guc_enable_busyness_worker(struct intel_guc *guc)
> mod_delayed_work(system_highpri_wq, &guc->timestamp.work, guc->timestamp.ping_delay);
> }
>
> -static void guc_cancel_busyness_worker(struct intel_guc *guc)
> +static void guc_cancel_busyness_worker(struct intel_guc *guc, bool sync)
> {
> - cancel_delayed_work_sync(&guc->timestamp.work);
> + if (sync)
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&guc->timestamp.work);
> + else
> + cancel_delayed_work(&guc->timestamp.work);
> }
>
> static void __reset_guc_busyness_stats(struct intel_guc *guc)
> @@ -1370,7 +1373,7 @@ static void __reset_guc_busyness_stats(struct intel_guc *guc)
> unsigned long flags;
> ktime_t unused;
>
> - guc_cancel_busyness_worker(guc);
> + guc_cancel_busyness_worker(guc, 0);
Should use true/false rather than 1/0 for bool values.
Also, this needs a comment actually in the code, not just in the patch
description. E.g.:
Attempting a synchronous cancel within the reset path leads to a
circular mutex locking complaint by lockdep. However, it is safe to
use an asynchronous cancel here. If the worker does actually run
concurrently with a reset then it will early exit due to the
mutex_trylock call rather than block.
>
> spin_lock_irqsave(&guc->timestamp.lock, flags);
>
> @@ -1485,7 +1488,7 @@ static int guc_init_engine_stats(struct intel_guc *guc)
>
> static void guc_fini_engine_stats(struct intel_guc *guc)
> {
> - guc_cancel_busyness_worker(guc);
> + guc_cancel_busyness_worker(guc, 1);
> }
>
> void intel_guc_busyness_park(struct intel_gt *gt)
> @@ -1500,7 +1503,7 @@ void intel_guc_busyness_park(struct intel_gt *gt)
> * and causes an unclaimed register access warning. Cancel the worker
> * synchronously here.
> */
> - guc_cancel_busyness_worker(guc);
> + guc_cancel_busyness_worker(guc, 1);
>
> /*
> * Before parking, we should sample engine busyness stats if we need to.
> @@ -4503,7 +4506,7 @@ int intel_guc_submission_enable(struct intel_guc *guc)
> /* Note: By the time we're here, GuC may have already been reset */
> void intel_guc_submission_disable(struct intel_guc *guc)
> {
> - guc_cancel_busyness_worker(guc);
> + guc_cancel_busyness_worker(guc, 0);
Hmm. I think this is going to need breaking up further back in the stack.
We definitely want to be doing a synchronous cancel in the general case
of disabling submission (e.g. due to suspend or driver unload). But if
this is happening as part of a reset call stack, then it is a problem.
AFAICT, the only way _submission_disable would be called within a reset
is if __uc_init_hw() failed for some reason. So one option would be to
add the sync/async flag to _submission_disable() as well and just make
the init failure case async with other callers being sync.
A better option might be to add an 'are busyness stats enabled' boolean
to the guc structure. And inside the cancel function, early exit if the
worker is not actually enabled (and set the flag anywhere and everywhere
that does a mod_work to enable it, which is just
guc_enable_busyness_worker() I think?). That would mean that multiple
disables do nothing. So e.g. a failed reset will cancel the worker
asynchronously in reset prepare but then not try to cancel it again
synchronously in submission disable. Hmm, except that init_hw has
already enabled the worker by that point :(.
FYC: Umesh and Daniele... any thoughts?
I would be tempted to say is there any way we can just add a lockdep
annotation to ignore this issue? The lockdep splat described in the
patch description above seems like a false positive to me. Sure the
reset lock is held by the reset code which is now trying to
synchronously flush the busyness worker thread which also takes the
reset lock. But the busyness worker thread does a trylock and will abort
if the lock is already held. So no issue...
However. I think we do have a genuine issue with the internal delayed
worker lock itself, which has maybe shown up in other lockdep splat
reports. For example, if a worker thread triggers a reset (e.g. anything
reset related coming in via a G2H) then the reset code is running inside
a worker thread. Which is maybe holding an internal kernel worker thread
lock? So if the reset path does a synchronous cancel of another worker
thread, that also requires taking the worker thread lock and thus a
deadlock occurs.
John.
>
> /* Semaphore interrupt disable and route to host */
> guc_route_semaphores(guc, false);
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20230607/1209d554/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list