Op 16-10-16 om 18:03 schreef Rob Clark:
> Currently with fence-array, we have a potential deadlock situation. If we
> fence_add_callback() on an array-fence, the array-fence's lock is aquired
> first, and in it's ->enable_signaling() callback, it will install cb's on
> it's array-member fences, so the array-member's lock is acquired second.
>
> But in the signal path, the array-member's lock is acquired first, and the
> array-fence's lock acquired second.
>
> One approach to deal with this is avoid holding the fence's lock when
> calling the cb. It is a bit intrusive and I haven't fixed up all the
> other drivers that call directly or indirectly fence_signal_locked().
>
> I guess the other option would be introduce a work-queue for array-fence?
> Or??
Enable signaling when creating the fence array is an option. As an optimization we don't enable
signaling when creating a single fence, but when you merge fences you're probably interested
in the result anyway.
The real problem is fence_add_callback in .enable_signaling, not the signaling itself.
> lockdep splat:
>
> ======================================================
> [ 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
> ---
> drivers/dma-buf/fence.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> drivers/dma-buf/sw_sync.c | 2 +-
> drivers/dma-buf/sync_debug.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> include/linux/fence.h | 6 +++---
> 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/fence.c
> index cc05ddd..917f905 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/fence.c
> @@ -63,9 +63,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(fence_context_alloc);
> *
> * Unlike fence_signal, this function must be called with fence->lock held.
> */
> -int fence_signal_locked(struct fence *fence)
> +int fence_signal_locked(struct fence *fence, unsigned long flags)
> {
> - struct fence_cb *cur, *tmp;
> + struct fence_cb *cur;
> int ret = 0;
>
> lockdep_assert_held(fence->lock);
> @@ -88,9 +88,12 @@ int fence_signal_locked(struct fence *fence)
> } else
> trace_fence_signaled(fence);
>
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(cur, tmp, &fence->cb_list, node) {
> + while (!list_empty(&fence->cb_list)) {
> + cur = list_first_entry(&fence->cb_list, struct fence_cb, node);
> list_del_init(&cur->node);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(fence->lock, flags);
> cur->func(fence, cur);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(fence->lock, flags);
Dropping the lock in this function is a terrible idea. The fence code assumes that signaling is atomic with setting the signaled bit.
This could probably introduce some race conditions, like when this function is called inside a driver's interrupt handler which requires
the lock to update other bookkeeping.
~Maarten
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
