[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Be wary of data races when reading the active execlists

[Chris Wilson]

[ 1413.563200] BUG: KCSAN: data-race in __await_execution+0x217/0x370 [i915]
[ 1413.563221]
[ 1413.563236] race at unknown origin, with read to 0xffff88885bb6c478 of 8 bytes by task 9654 on cpu 1:
[ 1413.563548]  __await_execution+0x217/0x370 [i915]
[ 1413.563891]  i915_request_await_dma_fence+0x4eb/0x6a0 [i915]
[ 1413.564235]  i915_request_await_object+0x421/0x490 [i915]
[ 1413.564577]  i915_gem_do_execbuffer+0x29b7/0x3c40 [i915]
[ 1413.564967]  i915_gem_execbuffer2_ioctl+0x22f/0x5c0 [i915]
[ 1413.564998]  drm_ioctl_kernel+0x156/0x1b0
[ 1413.565022]  drm_ioctl+0x2ff/0x480
[ 1413.565046]  __x64_sys_ioctl+0x87/0xd0
[ 1413.565069]  do_syscall_64+0x4d/0x80
[ 1413.565094]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9

To complicate matters, we have to both avoid the read tearing of *active
and avoid any write tearing as perform the pending[] -> inflight[]
promotion of the execlists.

Fixes: b55230e5e800 ("drm/i915: Check for awaits on still currently executing requests")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 15 +++++++++++----
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 17 +++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
index cd4262cc96e2..20ade9907754 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
@@ -2060,6 +2060,14 @@ static inline void clear_ports(struct i915_request **ports, int count)
 	memset_p((void **)ports, NULL, count);
 }
 
+static inline void
+copy_ports(struct i915_request **dst, struct i915_request **src, int count)
+{
+	/* A memcpy_p() would be very useful here! */
+	while (count--)
+		WRITE_ONCE(*dst++, *src++); /* avoid write tearing */
+}
+
 static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
 {
 	struct intel_engine_execlists * const execlists = &engine->execlists;
@@ -2648,10 +2656,9 @@ static void process_csb(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
 
 			/* switch pending to inflight */
 			GEM_BUG_ON(!assert_pending_valid(execlists, "promote"));
-			memcpy(execlists->inflight,
-			       execlists->pending,
-			       execlists_num_ports(execlists) *
-			       sizeof(*execlists->pending));
+			copy_ports(execlists->inflight,
+				   execlists->pending,
+				   execlists_num_ports(execlists));
 			smp_wmb(); /* complete the seqlock */
 			WRITE_ONCE(execlists->active, execlists->inflight);
 
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
index 72def88561ce..5a05e4d8b13c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
@@ -411,17 +411,30 @@ static bool __request_in_flight(const struct i915_request *signal)
 	 * As we know that there are always preemption points between
 	 * requests, we know that only the currently executing request
 	 * may be still active even though we have cleared the flag.
-	 * However, we can't rely on our tracking of ELSP[0] to known
+	 * However, we can't rely on our tracking of ELSP[0] to know
 	 * which request is currently active and so maybe stuck, as
 	 * the tracking maybe an event behind. Instead assume that
 	 * if the context is still inflight, then it is still active
 	 * even if the active flag has been cleared.
+	 *
+	 * To further complicate matters, if there a pending promotion, the HW
+	 * may either perform a context switch to the second inflight execlists,
+	 * or it may switch to the pending set of execlists. In the case of the
+	 * latter, it may send the ACK and we process the event copying the
+	 * pending[] over top of inflight[], _overwriting_ our *active. Since
+	 * this implies the HW is arbitrating and not struck in *active, we do
+	 * not worry about complete accuracy, but we do require no read/write
+	 * tearing of the pointer [the read of the pointer must be valid, even
+	 * as the array is being overwritten, for which we require the writes
+	 * to avoid tearing.]
 	 */
 	if (!intel_context_inflight(signal->context))
 		return false;
 
 	rcu_read_lock();
-	for (port = __engine_active(signal->engine); (rq = *port); port++) {
+	for (port = __engine_active(signal->engine);
+	     (rq = READ_ONCE(*port)); /* may race with promotion of pending[] */
+	     port++) {
 		if (rq->context == signal->context) {
 			inflight = i915_seqno_passed(rq->fence.seqno,
 						     signal->fence.seqno);
-- 
2.20.1