On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:17 AM Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 14.07.20 um 16:31 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 01:40:11PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > >> Am 14.07.20 um 12:49 schrieb Daniel Vetter: > >>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:12:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>>> My dma-fence lockdep annotations caught an inversion because we > >>>> allocate memory where we really shouldn't: > >>>> > >>>> kmem_cache_alloc+0x2b/0x6d0 > >>>> amdgpu_fence_emit+0x30/0x330 [amdgpu] > >>>> amdgpu_ib_schedule+0x306/0x550 [amdgpu] > >>>> amdgpu_job_run+0x10f/0x260 [amdgpu] > >>>> drm_sched_main+0x1b9/0x490 [gpu_sched] > >>>> kthread+0x12e/0x150 > >>>> > >>>> Trouble right now is that lockdep only validates against GFP_FS, which > >>>> would be good enough for shrinkers. But for mmu_notifiers we actually > >>>> need !GFP_ATOMIC, since they can be called from any page laundering, > >>>> even if GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO are set. > >>>> > >>>> I guess we should improve the lockdep annotations for > >>>> fs_reclaim_acquire/release. > >>>> > >>>> Ofc real fix is to properly preallocate this fence and stuff it into > >>>> the amdgpu job structure. But GFP_ATOMIC gets the lockdep splat out of > >>>> the way. > >>>> > >>>> v2: Two more allocations in scheduler paths. > >>>> > >>>> Frist one: > >>>> > >>>> __kmalloc+0x58/0x720 > >>>> amdgpu_vmid_grab+0x100/0xca0 [amdgpu] > >>>> amdgpu_job_dependency+0xf9/0x120 [amdgpu] > >>>> drm_sched_entity_pop_job+0x3f/0x440 [gpu_sched] > >>>> drm_sched_main+0xf9/0x490 [gpu_sched] > >>>> > >>>> Second one: > >>>> > >>>> kmem_cache_alloc+0x2b/0x6d0 > >>>> amdgpu_sync_fence+0x7e/0x110 [amdgpu] > >>>> amdgpu_vmid_grab+0x86b/0xca0 [amdgpu] > >>>> amdgpu_job_dependency+0xf9/0x120 [amdgpu] > >>>> drm_sched_entity_pop_job+0x3f/0x440 [gpu_sched] > >>>> drm_sched_main+0xf9/0x490 [gpu_sched] > >>>> > >>>> Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Cc: linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Cc: amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> Has anyone from amd side started looking into how to fix this properly? > >> Yeah I checked both and neither are any real problem. > > I'm confused ... do you mean "no real problem fixing them" or "not > > actually a real problem"? > > Both, at least the VMID stuff is trivial to avoid. > > And the fence allocation is extremely unlikely. E.g. when we allocate a > new one we previously most likely just freed one already. Yeah I think debugging we can avoid, just stop debugging if things get hung up like that. So mempool for the hw fences should be perfectly fine. The vmid stuff I don't really understand enough, but the hw fence stuff I think I grok, plus other scheduler users need that too from a quick look. I might be tackling that one (maybe put the mempool outright into drm_scheduler code as a helper), except if you have patches already in the works. vmid I'll leave to you guys :-) -Daniel > > > > >>> I looked a bit into fixing this with mempool, and the big guarantee we > >>> need is that > >>> - there's a hard upper limit on how many allocations we minimally need to > >>> guarantee forward progress. And the entire vmid allocation and > >>> amdgpu_sync_fence stuff kinda makes me question that's a valid > >>> assumption. > >> We do have hard upper limits for those. > >> > >> The VMID allocation could as well just return the fence instead of putting > >> it into the sync object IIRC. So that just needs some cleanup and can avoid > >> the allocation entirely. > > Yeah embedding should be simplest solution of all. > > > >> The hardware fence is limited by the number of submissions we can have > >> concurrently on the ring buffers, so also not a problem at all. > > Ok that sounds good. Wrt releasing the memory again, is that also done > > without any of the allocation-side locks held? I've seen some vmid manager > > somewhere ... > > Well that's the issue. We can't guarantee that for the hardware fence > memory since it could be that we hold another reference during debugging > IIRC. > > Still looking if and how we could fix this. But as I said this problem > is so extremely unlikely. > > Christian. > > > -Daniel > > > >> Regards, > >> Christian. > >> > >>> - mempool_free must be called without any locks in the way which are held > >>> while we call mempool_alloc. Otherwise we again have a nice deadlock > >>> with no forward progress. I tried auditing that, but got lost in amdgpu > >>> and scheduler code. Some lockdep annotations for mempool.c might help, > >>> but they're not going to catch everything. Plus it would be again manual > >>> annotations because this is yet another cross-release issue. So not sure > >>> that helps at all. > >>> > >>> iow, not sure what to do here. Ideas? > >>> > >>> Cheers, Daniel > >>> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c | 2 +- > >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c | 2 +- > >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c | 2 +- > >>>> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c > >>>> index 8d84975885cd..a089a827fdfe 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c > >>>> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ int amdgpu_fence_emit(struct amdgpu_ring *ring, struct dma_fence **f, > >>>> uint32_t seq; > >>>> int r; > >>>> - fence = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_fence_slab, GFP_KERNEL); > >>>> + fence = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_fence_slab, GFP_ATOMIC); > >>>> if (fence == NULL) > >>>> return -ENOMEM; > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c > >>>> index 267fa45ddb66..a333ca2d4ddd 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c > >>>> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static int amdgpu_vmid_grab_idle(struct amdgpu_vm *vm, > >>>> if (ring->vmid_wait && !dma_fence_is_signaled(ring->vmid_wait)) > >>>> return amdgpu_sync_fence(sync, ring->vmid_wait); > >>>> - fences = kmalloc_array(sizeof(void *), id_mgr->num_ids, GFP_KERNEL); > >>>> + fences = kmalloc_array(sizeof(void *), id_mgr->num_ids, GFP_ATOMIC); > >>>> if (!fences) > >>>> return -ENOMEM; > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c > >>>> index 8ea6c49529e7..af22b526cec9 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c > >>>> @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ int amdgpu_sync_fence(struct amdgpu_sync *sync, struct dma_fence *f) > >>>> if (amdgpu_sync_add_later(sync, f)) > >>>> return 0; > >>>> - e = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_sync_slab, GFP_KERNEL); > >>>> + e = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_sync_slab, GFP_ATOMIC); > >>>> if (!e) > >>>> return -ENOMEM; > >>>> -- > >>>> 2.27.0 > >>>> > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
