[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Switch obj->mm.lock lockdep annotations on its head

[Joonas Lahtinen]

Quoting Daniel Vetter (2019-11-04 19:37:18)
> The trouble with having a plain nesting flag for locks which do not
> naturally nest (unlike block devices and their partitions, which is
> the original motivation for nesting levels) is that lockdep will
> never spot a true deadlock if you screw up.
> 
> This patch is an attempt at trying better, by highlighting a bit more
> the actual nature of the nesting that's going on. Essentially we have
> two kinds of objects:
> 
> - objects without pages allocated, which cannot be on any lru and are
>   hence inaccessible to the shrinker.
> 
> - objects which have pages allocated, which are on an lru, and which
>   the shrinker can decide to throw out.
> 
> For the former type of object, memory allcoations while holding
> obj->mm.lock are permissible. For the latter they are not. And
> get/put_pages transitions between the two types of objects.
> 
> This is still not entirely fool-proof since the rules might chance.
> But as long as we run such a code ever at runtime lockdep should be
> able to observe the inconsistency and complain (like with any other
> lockdep class that we've split up in multiple classes). But there are
> a few clear benefits:
> 
> - We can drop the nesting flag parameter from
>   __i915_gem_object_put_pages, because that function by definition is
>   never going allocate memory, and calling it on an object which
>   doesn't have its pages allocated would be a bug.
> 
> - We strictly catch more bugs, since there's not only one place in the
>   entire tree which is annotated with the special class. All the
>   other places that had explicit lockdep nesting annotations we're now
>   going to leave up to lockdep again.
> 
> - Specifically this catches stuff like calling get_pages from
>   put_pages (which isn't really a good idea, if we can call put_pages

get_pages?

>   so could the shrinker). I've seen patches do exactly that.
> 
> Of course I fully expect CI will show me for the fool I am with this
> one here :-)
> 
> v2: There can only be one (lockdep only has a cache for the first
> subclass, not for deeper ones, and we don't want to make these locks
> even slower). Still separate enums for better documentation.
> 
> Real fix: don forget about phys objs and pin_map(), and fix the
> shrinker to have the right annotations ... silly me.
> 
> v3: Forgot usertptr too ...
> 
> v4: Improve comment for pages_pin_count, drop the IMPORTANT comment
> and instead prime lockdep (Chris).
> 
> v5: Appease checkpatch, no double empty lines (Chris)
> 
> v6: More rebasing over selftest changes. Also somehow I forgot to
> push this patch :-/
> 
> Also format comments consistently while at it.
> 
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: "Tang, CQ" <cq.tang at intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> (v5)
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>

Other than the below comment;

Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen at linux.intel.com>

Regards, Joonas