[Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe/bo: don't hold dma-resv lock over drm_gem_handle_create

[Matthew Auld]

On 20/11/2023 15:31, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> 
> On 10/9/23 11:00, Matthew Auld wrote:
>> This seems to create a locking inversion with object_name_lock. The lock
>> is held by drm_prime_fd_to_handle when calling our xe_gem_prime_import
>> hook, which might eventually go on to grab the dma-resv lock during the
>> attach. However we also have the opposite locking order in
>> xe_gem_create_ioctl which is holding the dma-resv lock when calling
>> drm_gem_handle_create, which wants to eventually grab object_name_lock:
>>
>> -> #1 (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
>> <4> [635.739288]        lock_acquire+0x169/0x3d0
>> <4> [635.739294]        __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.0+0x164/0x1e60
>> <4> [635.739300]        ww_mutex_lock_interruptible+0x42/0x1a0
>> <4> [635.739305]        drm_gem_shmem_pin+0x4b/0x140 [drm_shmem_helper]
>> <4> [635.739317]        dma_buf_dynamic_attach+0x101/0x430
>> <4> [635.739323]        xe_gem_prime_import+0xcc/0x2e0 [xe]
>> <4> [635.739499]        drm_prime_fd_to_handle_ioctl+0x184/0x2e0 [drm]
>> <4> [635.739594]        drm_ioctl_kernel+0x16f/0x250 [drm]
>> <4> [635.739693]        drm_ioctl+0x35e/0x620 [drm]
>> <4> [635.739789]        __x64_sys_ioctl+0xb7/0xf0
>> <4> [635.739794]        do_syscall_64+0x3c/0x90
>> <4> [635.739799]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
>> <4> [635.739805]
>> -> #0 (&dev->object_name_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
>> <4> [635.739813]        check_prev_add+0x1ba/0x14a0
>> <4> [635.739818]        __lock_acquire+0x203e/0x2ff0
>> <4> [635.739823]        lock_acquire+0x169/0x3d0
>> <4> [635.739827]        __mutex_lock+0x124/0x1310
>> <4> [635.739832]        drm_gem_handle_create+0x32/0x50 [drm]
>> <4> [635.739927]        xe_gem_create_ioctl+0x1d3/0x550 [xe]
>> <4> [635.740102]        drm_ioctl_kernel+0x16f/0x250 [drm]
>> <4> [635.740197]        drm_ioctl+0x35e/0x620 [drm]
>> <4> [635.740293]        __x64_sys_ioctl+0xb7/0xf0
>> <4> [635.740297]        do_syscall_64+0x3c/0x90
>> <4> [635.740302]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x6e/0xd8
>> <4> [635.740307]
>>
>> It looks like it should be safe to simply drop the dma-resv lock prior
>> to publishing the object when calling drm_gem_handle_create.
>>
>> Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel/-/issues/743
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
>> Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> 
> LGTM. Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>

Thanks.

> 
> 
> 
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c | 20 ++++++++++++--------
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
>> index 61789c0e88fb..ff116d3a8861 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_bo.c
>> @@ -1815,14 +1815,16 @@ int xe_gem_create_ioctl(struct drm_device 
>> *dev, void *data,
>>           if (XE_IOCTL_DBG(xe, !vm))
>>               return -ENOENT;
>>           err = xe_vm_lock(vm, true);
>> -        if (err) {
>> -            xe_vm_put(vm);
>> -            return err;
>> -        }
>> +        if (err)
>> +            goto out_vm;
>>       }
>>       bo = xe_bo_create(xe, NULL, vm, args->size, ttm_bo_type_device,
>>                 bo_flags);
>> +
>> +    if (vm)
>> +        xe_vm_unlock(vm);
>> +
>>       if (IS_ERR(bo)) {
>>           err = PTR_ERR(bo);
>>           goto out_vm;
>> @@ -1836,15 +1838,17 @@ int xe_gem_create_ioctl(struct drm_device 
>> *dev, void *data,
>>       goto out_put;
>>   out_bulk:
>> -    if (vm && !xe_vm_in_fault_mode(vm))
>> +    if (vm && !xe_vm_in_fault_mode(vm)) {
>> +        xe_vm_lock(vm, false);
>>           __xe_bo_unset_bulk_move(bo);
>> +        xe_vm_unlock(vm);
>> +    }
>>   out_put:
>>       xe_bo_put(bo);
>>   out_vm:
>> -    if (vm) {
>> -        xe_vm_unlock(vm);
>> +    if (vm)
>>           xe_vm_put(vm);
>> -    }
>> +
>>       return err;
>>   }