[PATCH 12/12] drm/xe: Fix missing runtime outer protection for ggtt_remove_node
Rodrigo Vivi
rodrigo.vivi at intel.com
Sat Aug 17 10:14:18 UTC 2024
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:08:26AM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:02:43AM GMT, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > Defer the ggtt node removal to a thread if runtime_pm is not active.
> >
> > The ggtt node removal can be called from multiple places, including
> > places where we cannot protect with outer callers and places we are
> > within other locks. So, try to grab the runtime reference if the
> > device is already active, otherwise defer the removal to a separate
> > thread from where we are sure we can wake the device up.
> >
> > v2: - use xe wq instead of system wq (Matt and CI)
> > - Avoid GFP_KERNEL to be future proof since this removal can
> > be called from outside our drivers and we don't want to block
> > if atomic is needed. (Brost)
> > v3: amend forgot chunk declaring xe_device.
> > v4: Use a xe_ggtt_region to encapsulate the node and remova info,
> > wihtout the need for any memory allocation at runtime.
> > v5: Actually fill the delayed_removal.invalidate (Brost)
> > v6: - Ensure that ggtt_region is not freed before work finishes (Auld)
> > - Own wq to ensures that the queued works are flushed before
> > ggtt_fini (Brost)
> > v7: also free ggtt_region on early !bound return (Auld)
> > v8: Address the null deref (CI)
> > v9: Based on the new xe_ggtt_node for the proper care of the lifetime
> > of the object.
> > v10: Redo the lost v5 change. (Brost)
> >
> > Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> > Cc: Francois Dugast <francois.dugast at intel.com>
> > Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt_types.h | 12 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
> > index 5c04c1bc8417..110acf828974 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt.c
> > @@ -161,6 +161,7 @@ static void ggtt_fini_early(struct drm_device *drm, void *arg)
> > {
> > struct xe_ggtt *ggtt = arg;
> >
> > + destroy_workqueue(ggtt->wq);
>
> better to follow the inverse order of init_early, but doesn't matter
> much in this case.
hmm...
maybe it does matter:
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/intel-xe/xe-pw-137398v1/bat-adlp-vf/igt@core_hotunplug@unbind-rebind.html
but maybe this was only a missed case of xe_ggtt_node_fini that I just
fixed on VF case...
But I didn't understand why you believe this doesn't follow the init_early
order? I intended to flush the wq and get all the nodes removed before
we destroy the mutex and take mm down...
What am I missing?
Btw, thanks for all the comments. Addressed almost all of them with
the exception of s/invalidate/flag I believe...
>
> > mutex_destroy(&ggtt->lock);
> > drm_mm_takedown(&ggtt->mm);
> > }
> > @@ -242,6 +243,8 @@ int xe_ggtt_init_early(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt)
> > else
> > ggtt->pt_ops = &xelp_pt_ops;
> >
> > + ggtt->wq = alloc_workqueue("xe-ggtt-wq", 0, 0);
> > +
> > drm_mm_init(&ggtt->mm, xe_wopcm_size(xe),
> > ggtt->size - xe_wopcm_size(xe));
> > mutex_init(&ggtt->lock);
> > @@ -276,6 +279,68 @@ static void xe_ggtt_initial_clear(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt)
> > mutex_unlock(&ggtt->lock);
> > }
> >
> > +static void ggtt_node_remove(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct xe_ggtt_node *node,
> > + bool invalidate)
>
> you don't need the invalidate arg anymore. Just make sure it's always
> set in node.
>
> > +{
> > + struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(ggtt->tile);
> > + bool bound;
> > + int idx;
> > +
> > + if (!node || !node->ggtt)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + bound = drm_dev_enter(&xe->drm, &idx);
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&ggtt->lock);
> > + if (bound)
> > + xe_ggtt_clear(ggtt, node->base.start, node->base.size);
> > + drm_mm_remove_node(&node->base);
> > + node->base.size = 0;
> > + mutex_unlock(&ggtt->lock);
> > +
> > + if (!bound)
> > + goto free_node;
> > +
> > + if (invalidate)
> > + xe_ggtt_invalidate(ggtt);
> > +
> > + drm_dev_exit(idx);
> > +
> > +free_node:
> > + xe_ggtt_node_fini(node);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void ggtt_node_remove_work_func(struct work_struct *work)
> > +{
> > + struct xe_ggtt_node *node = container_of(work, typeof(*node),
> > + delayed_removal.work);
> > + struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(node->ggtt->tile);
> > +
> > + xe_pm_runtime_get(xe);
> > + ggtt_node_remove(node->ggtt, node, node->delayed_removal.invalidate);
> > + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * xe_ggtt_node_remove - Remove a &xe_ggtt_node from the GGTT
> > + * @ggtt: the &xe_ggtt where node will be removed
> > + * @node: the &xe_ggtt_node to be removed
> > + * @invalidate: if node needs invalidation upon removal
> > + */
> > +void xe_ggtt_node_remove(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct xe_ggtt_node *node,
> > + bool invalidate)
> > +{
> > + struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(ggtt->tile);
> > +
> > + if (xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(xe)) {
> > + ggtt_node_remove(ggtt, node, invalidate);
> > + xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> > + } else {
> > + node->delayed_removal.invalidate = invalidate;
> > + queue_work(ggtt->wq, &node->delayed_removal.work);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * xe_ggtt_init - Regular non-early GGTT initialization
> > * @ggtt: the &xe_ggtt to be initialized
> > @@ -482,7 +547,9 @@ struct xe_ggtt_node *xe_ggtt_node_init(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt)
> > if (!node)
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >
> > + INIT_WORK(&node->delayed_removal.work, ggtt_node_remove_work_func);
> > node->ggtt = ggtt;
> > +
> > return node;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -499,46 +566,6 @@ void xe_ggtt_node_fini(struct xe_ggtt_node *node)
> > kfree(node);
> > }
> >
> > -/**
> > - * xe_ggtt_node_remove - Remove a &xe_ggtt_node from the GGTT
> > - * @ggtt: the &xe_ggtt where node will be removed
> > - * @node: the &xe_ggtt_node to be removed
> > - * @invalidate: if node needs invalidation upon removal
> > - */
> > -void xe_ggtt_node_remove(struct xe_ggtt *ggtt, struct xe_ggtt_node *node,
> > - bool invalidate)
> > -{
> > - struct xe_device *xe = tile_to_xe(ggtt->tile);
> > - bool bound;
> > - int idx;
> > -
> > - if (!node || !node->ggtt)
> > - return;
> > -
> > - bound = drm_dev_enter(&xe->drm, &idx);
> > - if (bound)
> > - xe_pm_runtime_get_noresume(xe);
> > -
> > - mutex_lock(&ggtt->lock);
> > - if (bound)
> > - xe_ggtt_clear(ggtt, node->base.start, node->base.size);
> > - drm_mm_remove_node(&node->base);
> > - node->base.size = 0;
> > - mutex_unlock(&ggtt->lock);
> > -
> > - if (!bound)
> > - goto free_node;
> > -
> > - if (invalidate)
> > - xe_ggtt_invalidate(ggtt);
> > -
> > - xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> > - drm_dev_exit(idx);
> > -
> > -free_node:
> > - xe_ggtt_node_fini(node);
> > -}
> > -
> > /**
> > * xe_ggtt_node_allocated - Check if node is allocated in GGTT
> > * @node: the &xe_ggtt_node to be inspected
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt_types.h
> > index 0e8822ae13fc..8b83610c6ee6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt_types.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_ggtt_types.h
> > @@ -47,6 +47,8 @@ struct xe_ggtt {
> > struct drm_mm mm;
> > /** @access_count: counts GGTT writes */
> > unsigned int access_count;
> > + /** @wq: Dedicated unordered work queue to process node removals */
> > + struct workqueue_struct *wq;
> > };
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -61,6 +63,16 @@ struct xe_ggtt_node {
> > struct xe_ggtt *ggtt;
> > /** @base: A drm_mm_node */
> > struct drm_mm_node base;
> > + /**
> > + * @delayed_removal: Information for removal through work thread when
> > + * device runtime_pm is suspended
> > + */
> > + struct {
> > + /** @delayed_removal.work: The work struct for the delayed removal */
> > + struct work_struct work;
> > + /** @delayed_removal.invalidate: If it needs invalidation upon removal */
> > + bool invalidate;
>
> as noted above, I'd move this outside and always use it.
>
> node->invalidate_on_remove
>
> or something like that.... should make it simpler IMO so you can ignore
> my comment about using a flags arg in a previous patch. Up to you if
> doing in this patch or as a follow up
>
> Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>
> Lucas De Marchi
>
> > + } delayed_removal;
> > };
> >
> > /**
> > --
> > 2.46.0
> >
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list