[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] i915: avoid kernel hang caused by synchronize rcu struct_mutex deadlock
Andrea Arcangeli
aarcange at redhat.com
Thu Apr 6 23:23:43 UTC 2017
synchronize_rcu/synchronize_sched/synchronize_rcu_expedited() will
hang until its own workqueues are run. The i915 gem workqueues will
wait on the struct_mutex to be released. So we cannot wait for a
quiescent state using those rcu primitives while holding the
struct_mutex or it creates a circular lock dependency resulting in
kernel hangs (which is reproducible but goes undetected by lockdep).
This started in commit 3d3d18f086cdda72ee18a454db70ca72c6e3246c and
lockdep didn't detect it apparently.
kswapd0 D 0 700 2 0x00000000
Call Trace:
? __schedule+0x1a5/0x660
? schedule+0x36/0x80
? _synchronize_rcu_expedited.constprop.65+0x2ef/0x300
? wake_up_bit+0x20/0x20
? rcu_stall_kick_kthreads.part.54+0xc0/0xc0
? rcu_exp_wait_wake+0x530/0x530
? i915_gem_shrink+0x34b/0x4b0
? i915_gem_shrinker_scan+0x7c/0x90
? i915_gem_shrinker_scan+0x7c/0x90
? shrink_slab.part.61.constprop.72+0x1c1/0x3a0
? shrink_zone+0x154/0x160
? kswapd+0x40a/0x720
? kthread+0xf4/0x130
? try_to_free_pages+0x450/0x450
? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
? ret_from_fork+0x23/0x30
plasmashell D 0 4657 4614 0x00000000
Call Trace:
? __schedule+0x1a5/0x660
? schedule+0x36/0x80
? schedule_preempt_disabled+0xe/0x10
? __mutex_lock.isra.4+0x1c9/0x790
? i915_gem_close_object+0x26/0xc0
? i915_gem_close_object+0x26/0xc0
? drm_gem_object_release_handle+0x48/0x90
? drm_gem_handle_delete+0x50/0x80
? drm_ioctl+0x1fa/0x420
? drm_gem_handle_create+0x40/0x40
? pipe_write+0x391/0x410
? __vfs_write+0xc6/0x120
? do_vfs_ioctl+0x8b/0x5d0
? SyS_ioctl+0x3b/0x70
? entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x13/0x94
kworker/0:0 D 0 29186 2 0x00000000
Workqueue: events __i915_gem_free_work
Call Trace:
? __schedule+0x1a5/0x660
? schedule+0x36/0x80
? schedule_preempt_disabled+0xe/0x10
? __mutex_lock.isra.4+0x1c9/0x790
? del_timer_sync+0x44/0x50
? update_curr+0x57/0x110
? __i915_gem_free_objects+0x31/0x300
? __i915_gem_free_objects+0x31/0x300
? __i915_gem_free_work+0x2d/0x40
? process_one_work+0x13a/0x3b0
? worker_thread+0x4a/0x460
? kthread+0xf4/0x130
? process_one_work+0x3b0/0x3b0
? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
? ret_from_fork+0x23/0x30
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange at redhat.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 9 +++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c | 14 ++++++++++----
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 67b1fc5..3982489 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -4742,6 +4742,13 @@ int i915_gem_freeze(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
i915_gem_shrink_all(dev_priv);
mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
+ /*
+ * Cannot call synchronize_rcu() inside the struct_mutex
+ * because it may block until workqueues complete, and the
+ * running workqueue may wait on the struct_mutex.
+ */
+ synchronize_rcu(); /* wait for our earlier RCU delayed slab frees */
+
intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
return 0;
@@ -4781,6 +4788,8 @@ int i915_gem_freeze_late(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
}
mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
+ synchronize_rcu_expedited();
+
return 0;
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
index d5d2b4c..fea1454 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
@@ -235,9 +235,6 @@ i915_gem_shrink(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
if (unlock)
mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
- /* expedite the RCU grace period to free some request slabs */
- synchronize_rcu_expedited();
-
return count;
}
@@ -263,7 +260,6 @@ unsigned long i915_gem_shrink_all(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
I915_SHRINK_BOUND |
I915_SHRINK_UNBOUND |
I915_SHRINK_ACTIVE);
- synchronize_rcu(); /* wait for our earlier RCU delayed slab frees */
return freed;
}
@@ -324,6 +320,16 @@ i915_gem_shrinker_scan(struct shrinker *shrinker, struct shrink_control *sc)
if (unlock)
mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
+ if (likely(__mutex_owner(&dev->struct_mutex) != current))
+ /*
+ * If reclaim was invoked by an allocation done while
+ * holding the struct mutex, we cannot call
+ * synchronize_rcu_expedited() as it depends on
+ * workqueues to run but the running workqueue may be
+ * blocked waiting on us to release struct_mutex.
+ */
+ synchronize_rcu_expedited();
+
return freed;
}
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list