[PATCH 08/13] PM / QoS: Fix constraints alloc vs reclaim locking
Rafael J. Wysocki
rafael at kernel.org
Mon Mar 13 12:29:17 UTC 2023
On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 9:42 PM Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Rob Clark <robdclark at 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.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark at chromium.org>
I need to take a deeper look at this and so some time is required.
> ---
> 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) {
> --
> 2.39.2
>
More information about the dri-devel
mailing list