On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 03:13:08PM -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 12:40:44 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Rodrigo,
>
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:23:50AM -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 22:35:58 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Rodrigo,
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 03:35:09PM -0700, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
> > > > > Instead of erroring out when GuC reset is in progress, block waiting for
> > > > > GuC reset to complete which is a more reasonable uapi behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > v2: Avoid race between wake_up_all and waiting for wakeup (Rodrigo)
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > > > index 9ab8971679fe3..8471a667dfc71 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_hwmon.c
> > > > > @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ struct hwm_drvdata {
> > > > > char name[12];
> > > > > int gt_n;
> > > > > bool reset_in_progress;
> > > > > + wait_queue_head_t waitq;
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > struct i915_hwmon {
> > > > > @@ -395,16 +396,41 @@ hwm_power_max_read(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, long *val)
> > > > > static int
> > > > > hwm_power_max_write(struct hwm_drvdata *ddat, long val)
> > > > > {
> > > > > +#define GUC_RESET_TIMEOUT msecs_to_jiffies(2000)
> > > > > +
> > > > > + int ret = 0, timeout = GUC_RESET_TIMEOUT;
> > > > > struct i915_hwmon *hwmon = ddat->hwmon;
> > > > > intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
> > > > > - int ret = 0;
> > > > > + DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > > > > u32 nval;
> > > > >
> > > > > - mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > > > > - if (hwmon->ddat.reset_in_progress) {
> > > > > - ret = -EAGAIN;
> > > > > - goto unlock;
> > > > > + /* Block waiting for GuC reset to complete when needed */
> > > > > + for (;;) {
> > > > > + mutex_lock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > > >
> > > > I'm really afraid of how this mutex is handled with the wait queue.
> > > > some initial thought it looks like it is trying to reimplement ww_mutex?
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I am missing the relation with ww_mutex. No such relation is
> > > intended.
> > >
> > > > all other examples of the wait_queue usages like this or didn't use
> > > > locks or had it in a total different flow that I could not correlate.
> > >
> > > Actually there are several examples of prepare_to_wait/finish_wait
> > > sequences with both spinlock and mutex in the kernel. See
> > > e.g. rpm_suspend(), wait_for_rtrs_disconnection(), softsynthx_read().
> > >
> > > Also, as I mentioned, except for the lock, the sequence here is identical
> > > to intel_guc_wait_for_pending_msg().
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + prepare_to_wait(&ddat->waitq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!hwmon->ddat.reset_in_progress)
> > > > > + break;
> > > >
> > > > If this breaks we never unlock it?
> > >
> > > Correct, this is the original case in Patch 2 where the mutex is acquired
> > > in the beginning of the function and released just before the final exit
> > > from the function (so the mutex is held for the entire duration of the
> > > function).
> >
> > I got really confused here...
>
> Sorry, the patch is a little confusing/tricky but I thought I'd better
> stick to the standard 'for (;;)' loop pattern otherwise it will also be
> hard to review.
>
> > I looked at the patch 2 again and I don't see any place where the lock
> > remains outside of the function. What was what I asked to remove on the
> > initial versions.
>
> So it was in Patch 1 where we changed the code to take the lock in the
> beginning of the function and release it at the end of the function (you
> can see it Patch 1).
>
> In Patch 2 the 'unlock' label and 'goto unlock' is introduced and the lock
> is released at the 'unlock' label (it is visible in Patch 2).
>
> > But now with this one I'm even more confused because I couldn't follow
> > to understand who will remove the lock and when.
>
> In Patch 3 again the lock is released at the the 'unlock' label (i.e. the
> destination of 'goto unlock', not visible in Patch 3). But we execute 'goto
> unlock' only when 'ret != 0' in the 'for (;;)' loop. But when 'ret == 0'
> (when 'ddat.reset_in_progress' flag is clear) we hold the mutex, execute
> the entire function and finally release the lock at the end of the
> function.
>
> Hopefully this helps.
more coffee also helped! I'm sorry for the noise.
with the timeout thing sorted out:
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (signal_pending(current)) {
> > > > > + ret = -EINTR;
> > > > > + break;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!timeout) {
> > > > > + ret = -ETIME;
> > > > > + break;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + mutex_unlock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > > >
> > > > do we need to lock the signal pending and timeout as well?
> > > > or only wrapping it around the hwmon->ddat access would be
> > > > enough?
> > >
> > > Strictly, the mutex is only needed for the hwmon->ddat.reset_in_progress
> > > flag. But because this is not a performance path, implementing it as done
> > > in the patch simplifies the code flow (since there are several if/else,
> > > goto's, mutex lock/unlock and prepare_to_wait/finish_wait to consider).
> > >
> > > So if possible I *really* want to not try to over-optimize here (I did try
> > > a few other things when writing the patch but it was getting ugly). The
> > > only real requirement is to drop the lock before calling schedule_timeout()
> > > below (and we are reacquiring the lock as soon as we are scheduled back in,
> > > as you can see in the loop above).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > + timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
> > > > > }
> > > > > + finish_wait(&ddat->waitq, &wait);
> > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > + goto unlock;
> > > > > +
> > > > > wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(ddat->uncore->rpm);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Disable PL1 limit and verify, because the limit cannot be disabled on all platforms */
> > > > > @@ -508,6 +534,7 @@ void i915_hwmon_power_max_restore(struct drm_i915_private *i915, bool old)
> > > > > intel_uncore_rmw(hwmon->ddat.uncore, hwmon->rg.pkg_rapl_limit,
> > > > > PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN, old ? PKG_PWR_LIM_1_EN : 0);
> > > > > hwmon->ddat.reset_in_progress = false;
> > > > > + wake_up_all(&hwmon->ddat.waitq);
> > > > >
> > > > > mutex_unlock(&hwmon->hwmon_lock);
> > > > > }
> > > > > @@ -784,6 +811,7 @@ void i915_hwmon_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > > > > ddat->uncore = &i915->uncore;
> > > > > snprintf(ddat->name, sizeof(ddat->name), "i915");
> > > > > ddat->gt_n = -1;
> > > > > + init_waitqueue_head(&ddat->waitq);
> > > > >
> > > > > for_each_gt(gt, i915, i) {
> > > > > ddat_gt = hwmon->ddat_gt + i;
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.38.0
> > > > >
> > >
> > > From what I understand is the locking above is fine and is not the
> > > point. The real race is between schedule_timeout() (which suspends the
> > > thread) and wake_up_all() (which schedules it back in). But this
> > > prepare_to_wait/finish_wait pattern is so widespread that the kernel
> > > guarantees that this works correctly as long as you do things in the
> > > correct order (otherwise we'd see a lot more kernel hangs/deadlocks).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ashutosh
