On 14/12/2021 17:04, Matthew Brost wrote:
From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
While attempting to debug a CT deadlock issue in various CI failures
(most easily reproduced with gem_ctx_create/basic-files), I was seeing
CPU deadlock errors being reported. This were because the context
destroy loop was blocking waiting on H2G space from inside an IRQ
spinlock. There no was deadlock as such, it's just that the H2G queue
was full of context destroy commands and GuC was taking a long time to
process them. However, the kernel was seeing the large amount of time
spent inside the IRQ lock as a dead CPU. Various Bad Things(tm) would
then happen (heartbeat failures, CT deadlock errors, outstanding H2G
WARNs, etc.).
Re-working the loop to only acquire the spinlock around the list
management (which is all it is meant to protect) rather than the
entire destroy operation seems to fix all the above issues.
v2:
(John Harrison)
- Fix typo in comment message
Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
---
.../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 45 ++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
index 36c2965db49b..96fcf869e3ff 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -2644,7 +2644,6 @@ static inline void guc_lrc_desc_unpin(struct intel_context *ce)
unsigned long flags;
bool disabled;
- lockdep_assert_held(&guc->submission_state.lock);
GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_gt_pm_is_awake(gt));
GEM_BUG_ON(!lrc_desc_registered(guc, ce->guc_id.id));
GEM_BUG_ON(ce != __get_context(guc, ce->guc_id.id));
@@ -2660,7 +2659,7 @@ static inline void guc_lrc_desc_unpin(struct intel_context *ce)
}
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
if (unlikely(disabled)) {
- __release_guc_id(guc, ce);
+ release_guc_id(guc, ce);
__guc_context_destroy(ce);
return;
}
@@ -2694,36 +2693,48 @@ static void __guc_context_destroy(struct intel_context *ce)
static void guc_flush_destroyed_contexts(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
- struct intel_context *ce, *cn;
+ struct intel_context *ce;
unsigned long flags;
GEM_BUG_ON(!submission_disabled(guc) &&
guc_submission_initialized(guc));
- spin_lock_irqsave(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
- list_for_each_entry_safe(ce, cn,
- &guc->submission_state.destroyed_contexts,
- destroyed_link) {
- list_del_init(&ce->destroyed_link);
- __release_guc_id(guc, ce);
+ while (!list_empty(&guc->submission_state.destroyed_contexts)) {
Are lockless false negatives a concern here - I mean this thread not seeing something just got added to the list?
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
+ ce = list_first_entry_or_null(&guc->submission_state.destroyed_contexts,
+ struct intel_context,
+ destroyed_link);
+ if (ce)
+ list_del_init(&ce->destroyed_link);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
+
+ if (!ce)
+ break;
+
+ release_guc_id(guc, ce);
This looks suboptimal and in conflict with this part of the commit message:
"""
Re-working the loop to only acquire the spinlock around the list
management (which is all it is meant to protect) rather than the
entire destroy operation seems to fix all the above issues.
"""
Because you end up doing:
... loop ...
spin_lock_irqsave(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
list_del_init(&ce->destroyed_link);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
release_guc_id, which calls:
spin_lock_irqsave(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
__release_guc_id(guc, ce);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
So a) the lock seems to be protecting more than just list management, or release_guc_if is wrong, and b) the loop ends up with highly questionable hammering on the lock.
Is there any point to this part of the patch? Or the only business end of the patch is below:
__guc_context_destroy(ce);
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
}
static void deregister_destroyed_contexts(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
- struct intel_context *ce, *cn;
+ struct intel_context *ce;
unsigned long flags;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
- list_for_each_entry_safe(ce, cn,
- &guc->submission_state.destroyed_contexts,
- destroyed_link) {
- list_del_init(&ce->destroyed_link);
+ while (!list_empty(&guc->submission_state.destroyed_contexts)) {
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
+ ce = list_first_entry_or_null(&guc->submission_state.destroyed_contexts,
+ struct intel_context,
+ destroyed_link);
+ if (ce)
+ list_del_init(&ce->destroyed_link);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
+
+ if (!ce)
+ break;
+
guc_lrc_desc_unpin(ce);
Here?
Not wanting/needing to nest ce->guc_state.lock under guc->submission_state.lock, and call the CPU cycle expensive deregister_context?
1)
Could you unlink en masse, under the assumption destroyed contexts are not reachable from anywhere else at this point, so under a single lock hold?
2)
But then you also end up with guc_lrc_desc_unpin calling __release_guc_id, which when called by release_guc_id does take guc->submission_state.lock and here it does not. Is it then clear which operations inside __release_guc_id need the lock? Bitmap or IDA?
Regards,
Tvrtko
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->submission_state.lock, flags);
}
static void destroyed_worker_func(struct work_struct *w)
