On 6/5/2023 20:00, Zhanjun Dong wrote:
This attemps to avoid circular locing dependency between flush delayed work and intel_gt_reset.
locing -> locking
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
6.4.0-rc1-drmtip_1340-g31e3463b0edb+ #1 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
kms_pipe_crc_ba/6415 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff88813e6cc640 ((work_completion)(&(&guc->timestamp.work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __flush_work+0x42/0x530
but task is already holding lock:
ffff88813e6cce90 (>->reset.mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: intel_gt_reset+0x19e/0x470 [i915]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #3 (>->reset.mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
lock_acquire+0xd8/0x2d0
i915_gem_shrinker_taints_mutex+0x31/0x50 [i915]
intel_gt_init_reset+0x65/0x80 [i915]
intel_gt_common_init_early+0xe1/0x170 [i915]
intel_root_gt_init_early+0x48/0x60 [i915]
i915_driver_probe+0x671/0xcb0 [i915]
i915_pci_probe+0xdc/0x210 [i915]
pci_device_probe+0x95/0x120
really_probe+0x164/0x3c0
__driver_probe_device+0x73/0x160
driver_probe_device+0x19/0xa0
__driver_attach+0xb6/0x180
bus_for_each_dev+0x77/0xd0
bus_add_driver+0x114/0x210
driver_register+0x5b/0x110
__pfx_vgem_open+0x3/0x10 [vgem]
do_one_initcall+0x57/0x270
do_init_module+0x5f/0x220
load_module+0x1ca4/0x1f00
__do_sys_finit_module+0xb4/0x130
do_syscall_64+0x3c/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
-> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
lock_acquire+0xd8/0x2d0
fs_reclaim_acquire+0xac/0xe0
kmem_cache_alloc+0x32/0x260
i915_vma_instance+0xb2/0xc60 [i915]
i915_gem_object_ggtt_pin_ww+0x175/0x370 [i915]
vm_fault_gtt+0x22d/0xf60 [i915]
__do_fault+0x2f/0x1d0
do_pte_missing+0x4a/0xd20
__handle_mm_fault+0x5b0/0x790
handle_mm_fault+0xa2/0x230
do_user_addr_fault+0x3ea/0xa10
exc_page_fault+0x68/0x1a0
asm_exc_page_fault+0x26/0x30
-> #1 (>->reset.backoff_srcu){++++}-{0:0}:
lock_acquire+0xd8/0x2d0
_intel_gt_reset_lock+0x57/0x330 [i915]
guc_timestamp_ping+0x35/0x130 [i915]
process_one_work+0x250/0x510
worker_thread+0x4f/0x3a0
kthread+0xff/0x130
ret_from_fork+0x29/0x50
-> #0 ((work_completion)(&(&guc->timestamp.work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}:
check_prev_add+0x90/0xc60
__lock_acquire+0x1998/0x2590
lock_acquire+0xd8/0x2d0
__flush_work+0x74/0x530
__cancel_work_timer+0x14f/0x1f0
intel_guc_submission_reset_prepare+0x81/0x4b0 [i915]
intel_uc_reset_prepare+0x9c/0x120 [i915]
reset_prepare+0x21/0x60 [i915]
intel_gt_reset+0x1dd/0x470 [i915]
intel_gt_reset_global+0xfb/0x170 [i915]
intel_gt_handle_error+0x368/0x420 [i915]
intel_gt_debugfs_reset_store+0x5c/0xc0 [i915]
i915_wedged_set+0x29/0x40 [i915]
simple_attr_write_xsigned.constprop.0+0xb4/0x110
full_proxy_write+0x52/0x80
vfs_write+0xc5/0x4f0
ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
do_syscall_64+0x3c/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x72/0xdc
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
(work_completion)(&(&guc->timestamp.work)->work) --> fs_reclaim --> >->reset.mutex
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(>->reset.mutex);
lock(fs_reclaim);
lock(>->reset.mutex);
lock((work_completion)(&(&guc->timestamp.work)->work));
*** DEADLOCK ***
3 locks held by kms_pipe_crc_ba/6415:
#0: ffff888101541430 (sb_writers#15){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: ksys_write+0x64/0xe0
#1: ffff888136c7eab8 (&attr->mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: simple_attr_write_xsigned.constprop.0+0x47/0x110
#2: ffff88813e6cce90 (>->reset.mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: intel_gt_reset+0x19e/0x470 [i915]
Signed-off-by: Zhanjun Dong <zhanjun.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
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 a0e3ef1c65d2..22390704542e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -1359,7 +1359,7 @@ static void guc_enable_busyness_worker(struct intel_guc *guc)
static void guc_cancel_busyness_worker(struct intel_guc *guc)
{
- cancel_delayed_work_sync(&guc->timestamp.work);
+ cancel_delayed_work(&guc->timestamp.work);
I think it is worth adding a comment here to explain that it is safe to
call the non _sync variant (because of the trylock code in the worker
itself) and that the _sync variant hits circular mutex lock issues.
John.
}
static void __reset_guc_busyness_stats(struct intel_guc *guc)
