[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 28/47] drm/i915: Hold reference to intel_context over life of i915_request

[Matthew Brost]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 08:05:30PM +0000, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:23:14AM -0700, John Harrison wrote:
> > On 6/24/2021 00:04, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > Hold a reference to the intel_context over life of an i915_request.
> > > Without this an i915_request can exist after the context has been
> > > destroyed (e.g. request retired, context closed, but user space holds a
> > > reference to the request from an out fence). In the case of GuC
> > > submission + virtual engine, the engine that the request references is
> > > also destroyed which can trigger bad pointer dref in fence ops (e.g.
> > Maybe quickly explain a why this is different for GuC submission vs
> > execlist? Presumably it is about only decomposing virtual engines to
> > physical ones in execlist mode?
> > 
> 
> Yes, it because in execlists we always end up pointing to a physical
> engine in the end while in GuC mode we can be pointing to dynamically
> allocated virtual engine. I can update the comment. 
> 
> > 
> > > i915_fence_get_driver_name). We could likely change
> > > i915_fence_get_driver_name to avoid touching the engine but let's just
> > > be safe and hold the intel_context reference.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 54 ++++++++++++-----------------
> > >   1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > > index de9deb95b8b1..dec5a35c9aa2 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > > @@ -126,39 +126,17 @@ static void i915_fence_release(struct dma_fence *fence)
> > >   	i915_sw_fence_fini(&rq->semaphore);
> > >   	/*
> > > -	 * Keep one request on each engine for reserved use under mempressure
> > > -	 *
> > > -	 * We do not hold a reference to the engine here and so have to be
> > > -	 * very careful in what rq->engine we poke. The virtual engine is
> > > -	 * referenced via the rq->context and we released that ref during
> > > -	 * i915_request_retire(), ergo we must not dereference a virtual
> > > -	 * engine here. Not that we would want to, as the only consumer of
> > > -	 * the reserved engine->request_pool is the power management parking,
> > > -	 * which must-not-fail, and that is only run on the physical engines.
> > > -	 *
> > > -	 * Since the request must have been executed to be have completed,
> > > -	 * we know that it will have been processed by the HW and will
> > > -	 * not be unsubmitted again, so rq->engine and rq->execution_mask
> > > -	 * at this point is stable. rq->execution_mask will be a single
> > > -	 * bit if the last and _only_ engine it could execution on was a
> > > -	 * physical engine, if it's multiple bits then it started on and
> > > -	 * could still be on a virtual engine. Thus if the mask is not a
> > > -	 * power-of-two we assume that rq->engine may still be a virtual
> > > -	 * engine and so a dangling invalid pointer that we cannot dereference
> > > -	 *
> > > -	 * For example, consider the flow of a bonded request through a virtual
> > > -	 * engine. The request is created with a wide engine mask (all engines
> > > -	 * that we might execute on). On processing the bond, the request mask
> > > -	 * is reduced to one or more engines. If the request is subsequently
> > > -	 * bound to a single engine, it will then be constrained to only
> > > -	 * execute on that engine and never returned to the virtual engine
> > > -	 * after timeslicing away, see __unwind_incomplete_requests(). Thus we
> > > -	 * know that if the rq->execution_mask is a single bit, rq->engine
> > > -	 * can be a physical engine with the exact corresponding mask.
> > > +	 * Keep one request on each engine for reserved use under mempressure,
> > > +	 * do not use with virtual engines as this really is only needed for
> > > +	 * kernel contexts.
> > >   	 */
> > > -	if (is_power_of_2(rq->execution_mask) &&
> > > -	    !cmpxchg(&rq->engine->request_pool, NULL, rq))
> > > +	if (!intel_engine_is_virtual(rq->engine) &&
> > > +	    !cmpxchg(&rq->engine->request_pool, NULL, rq)) {
> > > +		intel_context_put(rq->context);
> > >   		return;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	intel_context_put(rq->context);
> > The put is actually unconditional? So it could be moved before the if?
> > 
> 
> Yep, I think so.
> 

Wait nope. We reference rq->engine which could a virtual engine and the
intel_context_put could free that engine. So we need to do the put after
we reference it.

Matt

> Matt
> 
> > John.
> > 
> > >   	kmem_cache_free(global.slab_requests, rq);
> > >   }
> > > @@ -977,7 +955,18 @@ __i915_request_create(struct intel_context *ce, gfp_t gfp)
> > >   		}
> > >   	}
> > > -	rq->context = ce;
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Hold a reference to the intel_context over life of an i915_request.
> > > +	 * Without this an i915_request can exist after the context has been
> > > +	 * destroyed (e.g. request retired, context closed, but user space holds
> > > +	 * a reference to the request from an out fence). In the case of GuC
> > > +	 * submission + virtual engine, the engine that the request references
> > > +	 * is also destroyed which can trigger bad pointer dref in fence ops
> > > +	 * (e.g. i915_fence_get_driver_name). We could likely change these
> > > +	 * functions to avoid touching the engine but let's just be safe and
> > > +	 * hold the intel_context reference.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	rq->context = intel_context_get(ce);
> > >   	rq->engine = ce->engine;
> > >   	rq->ring = ce->ring;
> > >   	rq->execution_mask = ce->engine->mask;
> > > @@ -1054,6 +1043,7 @@ __i915_request_create(struct intel_context *ce, gfp_t gfp)
> > >   	GEM_BUG_ON(!list_empty(&rq->sched.waiters_list));
> > >   err_free:
> > > +	intel_context_put(ce);
> > >   	kmem_cache_free(global.slab_requests, rq);
> > >   err_unreserve:
> > >   	intel_context_unpin(ce);
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx