On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 04:04:05PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> We were holding the wrong lock to be using fence_is_signaled_locked().
>> And holding the child_list_lock over something that could end up calling
>> fence cb's angers lockdep:
>>
>> ======================================================
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 4.7.0-rc7+ #489 Not tainted
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> surfaceflinger/2034 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (&(&array->lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffff00000858cddc>] fence_signal+0x5c/0xf8
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffff0000085902f8>] sw_sync_ioctl+0x228/0x3b0
>>
>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>
>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>
>> -> #1 (&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock){......}:
>> [<ffff000008108924>] __lock_acquire+0x173c/0x18d8
>> [<ffff000008108e0c>] lock_acquire+0x4c/0x68
>> [<ffff000008ac6a6c>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x54/0x70
>> [<ffff00000858d05c>] fence_add_callback+0x3c/0x100
>> [<ffff00000858f100>] fence_array_enable_signaling+0x80/0x170
>> [<ffff00000858d0d8>] fence_add_callback+0xb8/0x100
>> [<ffff00000858f504>] sync_file_poll+0xd4/0xf0
>> [<ffff0000081fd3a0>] do_sys_poll+0x220/0x438
>> [<ffff0000081fd8d0>] SyS_ppoll+0x1b0/0x1d8
>> [<ffff000008084f30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
>>
>> -> #0 (&(&array->lock)->rlock){......}:
>> [<ffff000008104768>] print_circular_bug+0x80/0x2e0
>> [<ffff0000081089ac>] __lock_acquire+0x17c4/0x18d8
>> [<ffff000008108e0c>] lock_acquire+0x4c/0x68
>> [<ffff000008ac6a6c>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x54/0x70
>> [<ffff00000858cddc>] fence_signal+0x5c/0xf8
>> [<ffff00000858f268>] fence_array_cb_func+0x78/0x88
>> [<ffff00000858cb28>] fence_signal_locked+0x80/0xe0
>> [<ffff0000085903c8>] sw_sync_ioctl+0x2f8/0x3b0
>> [<ffff0000081faf6c>] do_vfs_ioctl+0xa4/0x790
>> [<ffff0000081fb6e4>] SyS_ioctl+0x8c/0xa0
>> [<ffff000008084f30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
>>
>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ---- ----
>> lock(&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock);
>> lock(&(&array->lock)->rlock);
>> lock(&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock);
>> lock(&(&array->lock)->rlock);
>>
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>
>> 1 lock held by surfaceflinger/2034:
>> #0: (&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffff0000085902f8>] sw_sync_ioctl+0x228/0x3b0
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> The fence_get()/_put() might be overkill.. wasn't sure if there was
>> any path where the ref could get dropped while child_list_lock was
>> released..
>>
>> drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c
>> index 62e8e6d..3bf8f5c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c
>> @@ -146,8 +146,17 @@ static void sync_timeline_signal(struct sync_timeline *obj, unsigned int inc)
>>
>> list_for_each_entry_safe(pt, next, &obj->active_list_head,
>> active_list) {
>> - if (fence_is_signaled_locked(&pt->base))
>> + struct fence *fence = fence_get(&pt->base);
>> + bool signaled;
>> +
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&obj->child_list_lock, flags);
>
> Hmm. The obj->child_list_lock and fence->lock are one and the same (
> fence->lock = &obj->child_list_lock). The problem lockdep is complaining
> about appears to nesting of identical lockclasses. (The current fence_cb
> design allows for unbounded recursion from the signal callbacks.)
> Aiui, this patch shouldn't be fixing anything as the fence_signal is
> still fired from under the very same obj->child_list_lock.
So I looked at this a bit more.. the real problem is actually that we
hold the fence's lock when calling the callback.. so combine that
with array-fences, and you have the situation that when you
fence_add_callback() on the array-fence, the array-fence's lock is
acquired first, and then the array-member's lock is acquired. But
when the array-member is signalled, it's lock is acquired first and
then (when last array-member is signalled) the array-fence's lock is
acquired.
I guess the best thing is to avoid holding the fence's lock when
calling it's cb?
BR,
-R
> -Chris
>
> --
> Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
