Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Fix unhandled deadlock in grab_vma()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/11/2022 05:31, Mani Milani wrote:
At present, the gpu thread crashes at times when grab_vma() attempts to
acquire a gem object lock when in a deadlock state.

Problems:
I identified the following 4 issues in the current code:
1. Since grab_vma() calls i915_gem_object_trylock(), which consequently
    calls ww_mutex_trylock(), to acquire lock, it does not perform any
    -EDEADLK handling; And -EALREADY handling is also unreliable,
    according to the description of ww_mutex_trylock().
2. Since the return value of grab_vma() is a boolean showing
    success/failure, it does not provide any extra information on the
    failure reason, and therefore does not provide any mechanism to its
    caller to take any action to fix a potential deadlock.
3. Current grab_vma() implementation produces inconsistent behaviour
    depending on the refcount value, without informing the caller. If
    refcount is already zero, grab_vma() neither acquires lock nor
    increments the refcount, but still returns 'true' for success! This
    means that grab_vma() returning true (for success) does not always
    mean that the gem obj is actually safely accessible.
4. Currently, calling "i915_gem_object_lock(obj,ww)" is meant to be
    followed by a consequent "i915_gem_object_unlock(obj)" ONLY if the
    original 'ww' object pointer was NULL, or otherwise not be called and
    leave the houskeeping to "i915_gem_ww_ctx_fini(ww)". There are a few
    issues with this:
    - This is not documented anywhere in the code (that I could find),
      but only explained in an older commit message.
    - This produces an inconsistent usage of the lock/unlock functions,
      increasing the chance of mistakes and issues.
    - This is not a clean design as it requires any new code that calls
      these lock/unlock functions to know their internals, as well as the
      internals of the functions calling the new code being added.

Fix:
To fix the issues above, this patch:
1. Changes grab_vma() to call i915_gem_object_lock() instead of
    i915_gem_object_trylock(), to handle -EDEADLK and -EALREADY cases.
    This should not cause any issue since the PIN_NONBLOCK flag is
    checked beforehand in the 2 cases grab_vma() is called.
2. Changes grab_vma() to return the actual error code, instead of bool.
3. Changes grab_vma() to behave consistently when returning success, by
    both incrementing the refcount and acquiring lock at all times.
4. Changes i915_gem_object_unlock() to pair with i915_gem_object_lock()
    nicely in all cases and do the housekeeping without the need for the
    caller to do anything other than simply calling lock and unlock.
5. Ensures the gem obj->obj_link is initialized and deleted from the ww
    list such that it can be tested for emptiness using list_empty().

Signed-off-by: Mani Milani <mani@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c |  2 +
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h | 10 ++++-
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c      | 48 ++++++++++++----------
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_ww.c         |  8 ++--
  4 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c
index 369006c5317f..69d013b393fb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.c
@@ -78,6 +78,8 @@ void i915_gem_object_init(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&obj->mm.link); + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&obj->obj_link);
+
  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&obj->lut_list);
  	spin_lock_init(&obj->lut_lock);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
index 1723af9b0f6a..7e7a61bdf52c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_object.h
@@ -219,7 +219,7 @@ static inline bool i915_gem_object_trylock(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
  		return ww_mutex_trylock(&obj->base.resv->lock, &ww->ctx);
  }
-static inline void i915_gem_object_unlock(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
+static inline void __i915_gem_object_unlock(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
  {
  	if (obj->ops->adjust_lru)
  		obj->ops->adjust_lru(obj);
@@ -227,6 +227,14 @@ static inline void i915_gem_object_unlock(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
  	dma_resv_unlock(obj->base.resv);
  }
+static inline void i915_gem_object_unlock(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
+{
+	if (list_empty(&obj->obj_link))
+		__i915_gem_object_unlock(obj);
+	else
+		i915_gem_ww_unlock_single(obj);
+}
+
  static inline void
  i915_gem_object_set_readonly(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
  {
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
index f025ee4fa526..3eb514b4eddc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c
@@ -55,29 +55,33 @@ static int ggtt_flush(struct intel_gt *gt)
  	return intel_gt_wait_for_idle(gt, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
  }
-static bool grab_vma(struct i915_vma *vma, struct i915_gem_ww_ctx *ww)
+static int grab_vma(struct i915_vma *vma, struct i915_gem_ww_ctx *ww)
  {
+	int err;
+
+	/* Dead objects don't need pins */
+	if (dying_vma(vma))
+		atomic_and(~I915_VMA_PIN_MASK, &vma->flags);
+
+	err = i915_gem_object_lock(vma->obj, ww);

AFAIK the issue here is that we are already holding the vm->mutex, so this can potentially deadlock, which I guess is why this was trylock.

We typically grab a bunch of object locks during execbuf, and then grab the vm->mutex, before binding the vma for each object. So vm->mutex is always our inner lock, and the object lock is the outer one. Using a full lock here then inverts that locking AFAICT. Like say if one process is holding object A + vm->mutex and then tries to grab object B here in grab_vma(), but another process is already holding object B + waiting to grab vm->mutex?

+
  	/*
  	 * We add the extra refcount so the object doesn't drop to zero until
-	 * after ungrab_vma(), this way trylock is always paired with unlock.
+	 * after ungrab_vma(), this way lock is always paired with unlock.
  	 */
-	if (i915_gem_object_get_rcu(vma->obj)) {
-		if (!i915_gem_object_trylock(vma->obj, ww)) {
-			i915_gem_object_put(vma->obj);
-			return false;
-		}
-	} else {
-		/* Dead objects don't need pins */
-		atomic_and(~I915_VMA_PIN_MASK, &vma->flags);
-	}
+	if (!err)
+		i915_gem_object_get(vma->obj);
- return true;
+	return err;
  }
static void ungrab_vma(struct i915_vma *vma)
  {
-	if (dying_vma(vma))
+	if (dying_vma(vma)) {
+		/* Dead objects don't need pins */
+		atomic_and(~I915_VMA_PIN_MASK, &vma->flags);
  		return;
+	}
i915_gem_object_unlock(vma->obj);
  	i915_gem_object_put(vma->obj);
@@ -93,10 +97,11 @@ mark_free(struct drm_mm_scan *scan,
  	if (i915_vma_is_pinned(vma))
  		return false;
- if (!grab_vma(vma, ww))
+	if (grab_vma(vma, ww))
  		return false;
list_add(&vma->evict_link, unwind);
+
  	return drm_mm_scan_add_block(scan, &vma->node);
  }
@@ -284,10 +289,12 @@ i915_gem_evict_something(struct i915_address_space *vm,
  		vma = container_of(node, struct i915_vma, node);
/* If we find any non-objects (!vma), we cannot evict them */
-		if (vma->node.color != I915_COLOR_UNEVICTABLE &&
-		    grab_vma(vma, ww)) {
-			ret = __i915_vma_unbind(vma);
-			ungrab_vma(vma);
+		if (vma->node.color != I915_COLOR_UNEVICTABLE) {
+			ret = grab_vma(vma, ww);
+			if (!ret) {
+				ret = __i915_vma_unbind(vma);
+				ungrab_vma(vma);
+			}
  		} else {
  			ret = -ENOSPC;
  		}
@@ -382,10 +389,9 @@ int i915_gem_evict_for_node(struct i915_address_space *vm,
  			break;
  		}
- if (!grab_vma(vma, ww)) {
-			ret = -ENOSPC;
+		ret = grab_vma(vma, ww);
+		if (ret)
  			break;
-		}
/*
  		 * Never show fear in the face of dragons!
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_ww.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_ww.c
index 3f6ff139478e..937b279f50fc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_ww.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_ww.c
@@ -19,16 +19,14 @@ static void i915_gem_ww_ctx_unlock_all(struct i915_gem_ww_ctx *ww)
  	struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
while ((obj = list_first_entry_or_null(&ww->obj_list, struct drm_i915_gem_object, obj_link))) {
-		list_del(&obj->obj_link);
-		i915_gem_object_unlock(obj);
-		i915_gem_object_put(obj);
+		i915_gem_ww_unlock_single(obj);
  	}
  }
void i915_gem_ww_unlock_single(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
  {
-	list_del(&obj->obj_link);
-	i915_gem_object_unlock(obj);
+	list_del_init(&obj->obj_link);
+	__i915_gem_object_unlock(obj);
  	i915_gem_object_put(obj);
  }



[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux