Hi Philip,
that is an expected result. You can only invalidate page tables without
holding the reservation lock.
What you do here is adding a new mapping and that one needs to allocate
a new page tables and won't work like this.
Regards,
Christian.
Am 12.12.19 um 15:38 schrieb Philip Yang:
Hi Christian,
FYI, remove amdgpu_bo_reserve(root, true) before calling
amdgpu_vm_bo_update_mapping, I got this warning backtrace:
[ 182.390072] WARNING: CPU: 12 PID: 4376 at
/home/yangp/git/compute_staging/kernel/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c:1229
ttm_bo_validate+0x14d/0x1b0 [ttm]
[ 182.390085] Modules linked in: fuse ip6table_filter ip6_tables
iptable_filter amdgpu amd_iommu_v2 gpu_sched ast drm_vram_helper
drm_ttm_helper ttm k10temp ip_tables x_tables i2c_piix4
[ 182.390123] CPU: 12 PID: 4376 Comm: kfdtest Tainted: G W
5.4.0-rc7-kfd-yangp #1
[ 182.390133] Hardware name: GIGABYTE MZ01-CE0-00/MZ01-CE0-00,
BIOS F12
08/05/2019
[ 182.390146] RIP: 0010:ttm_bo_validate+0x14d/0x1b0 [ttm]
[ 182.390153] Code: 40 ff 52 18 8b 44 24 04 e9 4f ff ff ff 48 8b
87 20
01 00 00 be ff ff ff ff 48 8d 78 60 e8 5b 3a e1 d4 85 c0 0f 85 e7
fe ff
ff <0f> 0b e9 e0 fe ff ff be 01 00 00 00 48 89 df e8 2f c4 ff ff
e9 19
[ 182.390161] RSP: 0018:ffffab7a032f3990 EFLAGS: 00010246
[ 182.390166] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff943c59b37850 RCX:
ffff943c59b35000
[ 182.390171] RDX: ffff943c539daf00 RSI: ffff943c56fb31d8 RDI:
ffff943c539db790
[ 182.390178] RBP: ffff943c59b37830 R08: 0000000000000200 R09:
0000000000000000
[ 182.390184] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 00000000001fee0e R12:
ffffab7a032f3a50
[ 182.390194] R13: 0000000000000200 R14: ffff943c59b37800 R15:
0000000000000000
[ 182.390197] FS: 00007f0d27f41780(0000) GS:ffff943c9e900000(0000)
knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 182.390203] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
[ 182.390209] CR2: 00007fba7a1010a0 CR3: 00000007f2624000 CR4:
00000000003406e0
[ 182.390212] Call Trace:
[ 182.390219] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x52/0x80
[ 182.390223] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x24/0x30
[ 182.390267] ? amdgpu_bo_do_create+0x4d1/0x5d0 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390319] amdgpu_vm_clear_bo+0x13d/0x3a0 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390371] ? amdgpu_vm_num_entries+0x1e/0x70 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390424] amdgpu_vm_update_ptes+0x561/0x5d0 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390480] amdgpu_vm_bo_update_mapping+0xfd/0x130 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390530] amdgpu_vm_bo_split_mapping+0x1ea/0x2c0 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390591] svm_range_map_to_gpus+0x160/0x310 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390650] kfd_register_svm+0xb8/0x2b0 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390708] kfd_ioctl_register_svm+0xe8/0x110 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390765] kfd_ioctl+0x232/0x3d0 [amdgpu]
[ 182.390823] ? kfd_ioctl_get_process_apertures_new+0x310/0x310
[amdgpu]
[ 182.390838] ? selinux_file_ioctl+0x153/0x210
[ 182.390845] do_vfs_ioctl+0xa2/0x6e0
[ 182.390854] ksys_ioctl+0x70/0x80
[ 182.390862] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
[ 182.390869] do_syscall_64+0x4a/0x1b0
[ 182.390879] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
Philip
On 2019-12-12 3:51 a.m., Christian König wrote:
Hi Felix,
yeah, I've also found a corner case which would raise a warning now.
Need to rework how dependencies for the PTE update are generated.
Going to take care of this in the next few days,
Christian.
Am 12.12.19 um 01:20 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
Hi Christian,
Alex started trying to invalidate PTEs in the MMU notifiers and
we're finding that we still need to reserve the VM reservation for
amdgpu_sync_resv in amdgpu_vm_sdma_prepare. Is that sync_resv still
needed now, given that VM fences aren't in that reservation object
any more?
Regards,
Felix
On 2019-12-05 5:39, Christian König wrote:
When a BO is evicted immedially invalidate the mapped PTEs.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
index 839d6df394fc..e578113bfd55 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
@@ -2565,6 +2565,7 @@ void amdgpu_vm_bo_invalidate(struct
amdgpu_device *adev,
struct amdgpu_bo *bo, bool evicted)
{
struct amdgpu_vm_bo_base *bo_base;
+ int r;
/* shadow bo doesn't have bo base, its validation needs its
parent */
if (bo->parent && bo->parent->shadow == bo)
@@ -2572,8 +2573,22 @@ void amdgpu_vm_bo_invalidate(struct
amdgpu_device *adev,
for (bo_base = bo->vm_bo; bo_base; bo_base = bo_base->next) {
struct amdgpu_vm *vm = bo_base->vm;
+ struct dma_resv *resv = vm->root.base.bo->tbo.base.resv;
+
+ if (bo->tbo.type != ttm_bo_type_kernel) {
+ struct amdgpu_bo_va *bo_va;
+
+ bo_va = container_of(bo_base, struct amdgpu_bo_va,
+ base);
+ r = amdgpu_vm_bo_update(adev, bo_va,
+ bo->tbo.base.resv != resv);
+ if (!r) {
+ amdgpu_vm_bo_idle(bo_base);
+ continue;
+ }
+ }
- if (evicted && bo->tbo.base.resv ==
vm->root.base.bo->tbo.base.resv) {
+ if (evicted && bo->tbo.base.resv == resv) {
amdgpu_vm_bo_evicted(bo_base);
continue;
}
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
