[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix unhandled deadlock in grab_vma()
Mani Milani
mani at chromium.org
Tue Nov 15 23:54:29 UTC 2022
Hi Thomas,
It is a user-space application that crashes due to receiving an -ENOSPC.
This occurs after code reaches the line below where grab_vma() fails
(due to deadlock) and consequently i915_gem_evict_for_node() returns
-ENOSPC. I provided the call stack for when this happens in my
previous message:
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blame/59d0d52c30d4991ac4b329f049cc37118e00f5b0/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c#L386
Context:
This crash is happening on an intel GeminiLake chromebook, when
running a video seek h264 stress test, and it is reproducible 100%. To
troubleshoot, I did a git bisect and found the following commit to be
the culprit (which is when grab_vma() has been introduced):
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/7e00897be8bf13ef9c68c95a8e386b714c29ad95
I also have crash dumps and further logs that I can send you if
needed. But please let me know how to share those with you, since
pasting them here does not seem reasonable to me.
Thanks,
Mani
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:48 PM Thomas Hellström
<thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Mani.
>
> On 11/14/22 03:16, Mani Milani wrote:
> > Thank you for your comments.
> >
> > To Thomas's point, the crash always seems to happen when the following
> > sequence of events occurs:
> >
> > 1. When inside "i915_gem_evict_vm()", the call to
> > "i915_gem_object_trylock(vma->obj, ww)" fails (due to deadlock), and
> > eviction of a vma is skipped as a result. Basically if the code
> > reaches here:
> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c#L468
> > And here is the stack dump for this scenario:
> > Call Trace:
> > <TASK>
> > dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x95
> > i915_gem_evict_vm+0x1d2/0x369
> > eb_validate_vmas+0x54a/0x6ae
> > eb_relocate_parse+0x4b/0xdb
> > i915_gem_execbuffer2_ioctl+0x6f5/0xab6
> > ? i915_gem_object_prepare_write+0xfb/0xfb
> > drm_ioctl_kernel+0xda/0x14d
> > drm_ioctl+0x27f/0x3b7
> > ? i915_gem_object_prepare_write+0xfb/0xfb
> > __se_sys_ioctl+0x7a/0xbc
> > do_syscall_64+0x56/0xa1
> > ? exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x3d/0x8c
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xcb
> > RIP: 0033:0x78302de5fae7
> > Code: c0 0f 89 74 ff ff ff 48 83 c4 08 49 c7 c4 ff ff ff ff 5b 4c
> > 89 e0 41 5c 41 5d 5d c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 b8 10 00 00 00 0f 05 <48>
> > 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 51 c3 0c 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> > RSP: 002b:00007ffe64b87f78 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000003cc00470000 RCX: 000078302de5fae7
> > RDX: 00007ffe64b87fd0 RSI: 0000000040406469 RDI: 000000000000000d
> > RBP: 00007ffe64b87fa0 R08: 0000000000000013 R09: 000003cc004d0950
> > R10: 0000000000000200 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000000000d
> > R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 00007ffe64b87fd0 R15: 0000000040406469
> > </TASK>
> > It is worth noting that "i915_gem_evict_vm()" still returns success in
> > this case.
> >
> > 2. After step 1 occurs, the next call to "grab_vma()" always fails
> > (with "i915_gem_object_trylock(vma->obj, ww)" failing also due to
> > deadlock), which then results in the crash.
> > Here is the stack dump for this scenario:
> > Call Trace:
> > <TASK>
> > dump_stack_lvl+0x68/0x95
> > grab_vma+0x6c/0xd0
> > i915_gem_evict_for_node+0x178/0x23b
> > i915_gem_gtt_reserve+0x5a/0x82
> > i915_vma_insert+0x295/0x29e
> > i915_vma_pin_ww+0x41e/0x5c7
> > eb_validate_vmas+0x5f5/0x6ae
> > eb_relocate_parse+0x4b/0xdb
> > i915_gem_execbuffer2_ioctl+0x6f5/0xab6
> > ? i915_gem_object_prepare_write+0xfb/0xfb
> > drm_ioctl_kernel+0xda/0x14d
> > drm_ioctl+0x27f/0x3b7
> > ? i915_gem_object_prepare_write+0xfb/0xfb
> > __se_sys_ioctl+0x7a/0xbc
> > do_syscall_64+0x56/0xa1
> > ? exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x3d/0x8c
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xcb
> > RIP: 0033:0x78302de5fae7
> > Code: c0 0f 89 74 ff ff ff 48 83 c4 08 49 c7 c4 ff ff ff ff 5b 4c
> > 89 e0 41 5c 41 5d 5d c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 b8 10 00 00 00 0f 05 <48>
> > 3d 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 51 c3 0c 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> > RSP: 002b:00007ffe64b87f78 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000003cc00470000 RCX: 000078302de5fae7
> > RDX: 00007ffe64b87fd0 RSI: 0000000040406469 RDI: 000000000000000d
> > RBP: 00007ffe64b87fa0 R08: 0000000000000013 R09: 000003cc004d0950
> > R10: 0000000000000200 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 000000000000000d
> > R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 00007ffe64b87fd0 R15: 0000000040406469
> > </TASK>
> >
> > My Notes:
> > - I verified the two "i915_gem_object_trylock()" failures I mentioned
> > above are due to deadlock by slightly modifying the code to call
> > "i915_gem_object_lock()" only in those exact cases and subsequent to
> > the trylock failure, only to look at the return error code.
> > - The two cases mentioned above, are the only cases where
> > "i915_gem_object_trylock(obj, ww)" is called with the second argument
> > not being forced to NULL.
> > - When in either of the two cases above (i.e. inside "grab_vma()" or
> > "i915_gem_evict_vm") I replace calling "i915_gem_object_trylock" with
> > "i915_gem_object_lock", the issue gets resolved (because deadlock is
> > detected and resolved).
> >
> > So if this could matches the design better, another solution could be
> > for "grab_vma" to continue to call "i915_gem_object_trylock", but for
> > "i915_gem_evict_vm" to call "i915_gem_object_lock" instead.
>
> No, i915_gem_object_lock() is not allowed when the vm mutex is held.
>
>
> >
> > Further info:
> > - Would you like any further info on the crash? If so, could you
> > please advise 1) what exactly you need and 2) how I can share with you
> > especially if it is big dumps?
>
> Yes, I would like to know how the crash manifests itself. Is it a kernel
> BUG or a kernel WARNING or is it the user-space application that crashes
> due to receiveing an -ENOSPC?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
> >
> > Thanks.
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list