[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use rcu instead of stop_machine

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 05/10/2017 15:09, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> stop_machine is not really a locking primitive we should use, except
> when the hw folks tell us the hw is broken and that's the only way to
> work around it.
> 
> This patch here is just a suggestion for how to fix it up, possible
> changes needed to make it actually work:
> 
> - Set the nop_submit_request first for _all_ engines, before
>    proceeding.
> 
> - Make sure engine->cancel_requests copes with the possibility that
>    not all tests have consistently used the new or old version. I dont
>    think this is a problem, since the same can happen really with the
>    stop_machine() locking - stop_machine also doesn't give you any kind
>    of global ordering against other cpu threads, it just makes them
>    stop.
> 
> This patch tries to address the locking snafu from
> 
> commit 20e4933c478a1ca694b38fa4ac44d99e659941f5
> Author: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Date:   Tue Nov 22 14:41:21 2016 +0000
> 
>      drm/i915: Stop the machine as we install the wedged submit_request handler
> 
> Chris said parts of the reasons for going with stop_machine() was that
> it's no overhead for the fast-path. But these callbacks use irqsave
> spinlocks and do a bunch of MMIO, and rcu_read_lock is _real_ fast.
> 
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c                   | 18 +++++-------------
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c           |  2 ++
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_request.c |  2 ++
>   3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index ab8c6946fea4..0b260e576b4b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -3022,13 +3022,13 @@ static void nop_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
>   
>   static void engine_set_wedged(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>   {
> +	engine->submit_request = nop_submit_request;

Should this be rcu_assign_pointer?

> +
>   	/* We need to be sure that no thread is running the old callback as
>   	 * we install the nop handler (otherwise we would submit a request
> -	 * to hardware that will never complete). In order to prevent this
> -	 * race, we wait until the machine is idle before making the swap
> -	 * (using stop_machine()).
> +	 * to hardware that will never complete).
>   	 */
> -	engine->submit_request = nop_submit_request;
> +	synchronize_rcu();

Consumers of this are running in irq disabled or softirq. Does this mean 
we would need synchronize_rcu_bh? Would either guarantee all tasklets 
and irq handlers have exited?

>   	/* Mark all executing requests as skipped */
>   	engine->cancel_requests(engine);
> @@ -3041,9 +3041,8 @@ static void engine_set_wedged(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>   				       intel_engine_last_submit(engine));
>   }
>   
> -static int __i915_gem_set_wedged_BKL(void *data)
> +void i915_gem_set_wedged(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
>   {
> -	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = data;
>   	struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
>   	enum intel_engine_id id;
>   
> @@ -3052,13 +3051,6 @@ static int __i915_gem_set_wedged_BKL(void *data)
>   
>   	set_bit(I915_WEDGED, &i915->gpu_error.flags);
>   	wake_up_all(&i915->gpu_error.reset_queue);
> -
> -	return 0;
> -}
> -
> -void i915_gem_set_wedged(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> -{
> -	stop_machine(__i915_gem_set_wedged_BKL, dev_priv, NULL);
>   }
>   
>   bool i915_gem_unset_wedged(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> index b100b38f1dd2..ef78a85cb845 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> @@ -556,7 +556,9 @@ submit_notify(struct i915_sw_fence *fence, enum i915_sw_fence_notify state)
>   	switch (state) {
>   	case FENCE_COMPLETE:
>   		trace_i915_gem_request_submit(request);
> +		rcu_read_lock();
>   		request->engine->submit_request(request);
> +		rcu_read_unlock();

And _bh for these? Although this already runs with preemption off, but I 
guess it is good for documentation.

Regards,

Tvrtko

>   		break;
>   
>   	case FENCE_FREE:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_request.c
> index 78b9f811707f..a999161e8db1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_gem_request.c
> @@ -215,7 +215,9 @@ static int igt_request_rewind(void *arg)
>   	}
>   	i915_gem_request_get(vip);
>   	i915_add_request(vip);
> +	rcu_read_lock();
>   	request->engine->submit_request(request);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>   
>   	mutex_unlock(&i915->drm.struct_mutex);
>   
>