[Intel-xe] FW: [PATCH] drm/xe: Fix lockdep warning in xe_force_wake calls
Aravind Iddamsetty
aravind.iddamsetty at linux.intel.com
Fri Nov 24 07:54:14 UTC 2023
On 11/24/23 12:39, Gupta, Anshuman wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty at linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2023 12:14 PM
> To: intel-xe at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>; Gupta, Anshuman <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>; Nerlige Ramappa, Umesh <umesh.nerlige.ramappa at intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] drm/xe: Fix lockdep warning in xe_force_wake calls
>
> Introduce atomic version for xe_force_wake calls which uses spin_lock while the non atomic version uses spin_lock_irq
>
> Fix for below:
> [13994.811263] ========================================================
> [13994.811295] WARNING: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected
> [13994.811326] 6.6.0-rc3-xe #2 Tainted: G U
> [13994.811358] --------------------------------------------------------
> [13994.811388] swapper/0/0 just changed the state of lock:
> [13994.811416] ffff895c7e044db8 (&cpuctx_lock){-...}-{2:2}, at:
> __perf_event_read+0xb7/0x3a0
> [13994.811494] but this lock took another, HARDIRQ-unsafe lock in the
> past:
> [13994.811528] (&fw->lock){+.+.}-{2:2}
> [13994.811544]
>
> and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
>
> [13994.811606]
> other info that might help us debug this:
> [13994.811636] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>
> [13994.811667] CPU0 CPU1
> [13994.811691] ---- ----
> [13994.811715] lock(&fw->lock);
> [13994.811744] local_irq_disable();
> [13994.811773] lock(&cpuctx_lock);
> [13994.811810] lock(&fw->lock);
> [13994.811846] <Interrupt>
> [13994.811865] lock(&cpuctx_lock);
> [13994.811895]
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> v2: Use spin_lock in atomic context and spin_lock_irq in a non atomic context (Matthew Brost)
>
> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> Cc: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>
> Cc: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Aravind Iddamsetty <aravind.iddamsetty at linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h | 4 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c | 4 +-
> 3 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> index 32d6c4dd2807..1693097f72d3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.c
> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ int xe_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> enum xe_force_wake_domains tmp, woken = 0;
> int ret, ret2 = 0;
>
> - spin_lock(&fw->lock);
> + spin_lock_irq(&fw->lock);
> for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, domains, fw, tmp) {
> if (!domain->ref++) {
> woken |= BIT(domain->id);
> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ int xe_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> domain->id, ret);
> }
> fw->awake_domains |= woken;
> - spin_unlock(&fw->lock);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&fw->lock);
>
> return ret2;
> }
> @@ -176,6 +176,64 @@ int xe_force_wake_put(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> enum xe_force_wake_domains tmp, sleep = 0;
> int ret, ret2 = 0;
>
> + spin_lock_irq(&fw->lock);
> + for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, domains, fw, tmp) {
> + if (!--domain->ref) {
> + sleep |= BIT(domain->id);
> + domain_sleep(gt, domain);
> + }
> + }
> + for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, sleep, fw, tmp) {
> + ret = domain_sleep_wait(gt, domain);
> + ret2 |= ret;
> + if (ret)
> + drm_notice(&xe->drm, "Force wake domain (%d) failed to ack sleep, ret=%d\n",
> + domain->id, ret);
> + }
> + fw->awake_domains &= ~sleep;
> + spin_unlock_irq(&fw->lock);
> +
> + return ret2;
> +}
> +
> +int xe_atomic_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> + enum xe_force_wake_domains domains) {
> Is it possible to re-use the code something like below, for both atomic and non-atomic versions?
> Any how we are using lock around whole function here.
>
> int xe_force_wake_get()
> {
> local_irq_disable();
> xe_atomic_force_wake_get();
> local_irq_disable();
> }
I feel it is better we use the respective spin lock helpers to do that rather than we doing it and hence
having it the way it is good. Little skeptical about the ordering of irq_disable/enable and preemption disable/enable used
in the spin lock helpers so do not want to change that.
Thanks,
Aravind.
> Thanks,
> Anshuman Gupta.
> + struct xe_device *xe = fw_to_xe(fw);
> + struct xe_gt *gt = fw_to_gt(fw);
> + struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain;
> + enum xe_force_wake_domains tmp, woken = 0;
> + int ret, ret2 = 0;
> +
> + spin_lock(&fw->lock);
> + for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, domains, fw, tmp) {
> + if (!domain->ref++) {
> + woken |= BIT(domain->id);
> + domain_wake(gt, domain);
> + }
> + }
> + for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, woken, fw, tmp) {
> + ret = domain_wake_wait(gt, domain);
> + ret2 |= ret;
> + if (ret)
> + drm_notice(&xe->drm, "Force wake domain (%d) failed to ack wake, ret=%d\n",
> + domain->id, ret);
> + }
> + fw->awake_domains |= woken;
> + spin_unlock(&fw->lock);
> +
> + return ret2;
> +}
> +
> +int xe_atomic_force_wake_put(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> + enum xe_force_wake_domains domains) {
> + struct xe_device *xe = fw_to_xe(fw);
> + struct xe_gt *gt = fw_to_gt(fw);
> + struct xe_force_wake_domain *domain;
> + enum xe_force_wake_domains tmp, sleep = 0;
> + int ret, ret2 = 0;
> +
> spin_lock(&fw->lock);
> for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, domains, fw, tmp) {
> if (!--domain->ref) {
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h
> index 83cb157da7cc..584bedcd72fe 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_force_wake.h
> @@ -19,6 +19,10 @@ int xe_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> enum xe_force_wake_domains domains); int xe_force_wake_put(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> enum xe_force_wake_domains domains);
> +int xe_atomic_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> + enum xe_force_wake_domains domains); int
> +xe_atomic_force_wake_put(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> + enum xe_force_wake_domains domains);
>
> static inline int
> xe_force_wake_ref(struct xe_force_wake *fw, diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c index 9d0b7887cfc4..4fb77c7693c2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c
> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static u64 engine_group_busyness_read(struct xe_gt *gt, u64 config)
>
> device_awake = xe_device_mem_access_get_if_ongoing(xe);
> if (device_awake) {
> - XE_WARN_ON(xe_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT));
> + XE_WARN_ON(xe_atomic_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT));
> val = __engine_group_busyness_read(gt, sample_type);
> - XE_WARN_ON(xe_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT));
> + XE_WARN_ON(xe_atomic_force_wake_put(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT));
> xe_device_mem_access_put(xe);
> }
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list