On 8/29/23 10:29, Boris Brezillon wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 05:34:23 +0300 > Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 8/28/23 13:12, Boris Brezillon wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:54:43 +0300 >>> Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> In a preparation of adding drm-shmem memory shrinker, move all reservation >>>> locking lockdep checks to use new drm_gem_shmem_resv_assert_held() that >>>> will resolve spurious lockdep warning about wrong locking order vs >>>> fs_reclam code paths during freeing of shmem GEM, where lockdep isn't >>>> aware that it's impossible to have locking contention with the fs_reclam >>>> at this special time. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <dmitry.osipenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++--------- >>>> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c >>>> index d96fee3d6166..ca5da976aafa 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c >>>> @@ -128,6 +128,23 @@ struct drm_gem_shmem_object *drm_gem_shmem_create(struct drm_device *dev, size_t >>>> } >>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_gem_shmem_create); >>>> >>>> +static void drm_gem_shmem_resv_assert_held(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem) >>>> +{ >>>> + /* >>>> + * Destroying the object is a special case.. drm_gem_shmem_free() >>>> + * calls many things that WARN_ON if the obj lock is not held. But >>>> + * acquiring the obj lock in drm_gem_shmem_free() can cause a locking >>>> + * order inversion between reservation_ww_class_mutex and fs_reclaim. >>>> + * >>>> + * This deadlock is not actually possible, because no one should >>>> + * be already holding the lock when drm_gem_shmem_free() is called. >>>> + * Unfortunately lockdep is not aware of this detail. So when the >>>> + * refcount drops to zero, we pretend it is already locked. >>>> + */ >>>> + if (kref_read(&shmem->base.refcount)) >>>> + drm_gem_shmem_resv_assert_held(shmem); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> /** >>>> * drm_gem_shmem_free - Free resources associated with a shmem GEM object >>>> * @shmem: shmem GEM object to free >>>> @@ -142,8 +159,6 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_free(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem) >>>> if (obj->import_attach) { >>>> drm_prime_gem_destroy(obj, shmem->sgt); >>>> } else if (!shmem->imported_sgt) { >>>> - dma_resv_lock(shmem->base.resv, NULL); >>>> - >>>> drm_WARN_ON(obj->dev, kref_read(&shmem->vmap_use_count)); >>>> >>>> if (shmem->sgt) { >>>> @@ -156,8 +171,6 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_free(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem) >>>> drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked(shmem); >>> >>> AFAICT, drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked() is the only function that's >>> called in the free path and would complain about resv-lock not being >>> held. I think I'd feel more comfortable if we were adding a >>> drm_gem_shmem_free_pages() function that did everything >>> drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked() does except for the lock_held() check >>> and the refcount dec, and have it called here (and in >>> drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked()). This way we can keep using >>> dma_resv_assert_held() instead of having our own variant. >> >> It's not only drm_gem_shmem_free_pages(), but any drm-shmem function >> that drivers may use in the GEM's freeing callback. >> >> For example, panfrost_gem_free_object() may unpin shmem BO and then do >> drm_gem_shmem_free(). > > Is this really a valid use case? If the GEM refcount dropped to zero, > we should certainly not have pages_pin_count > 0 (thinking of vmap-ed > buffers that might disappear while kernel still has a pointer to the > CPU-mapped area). The only reason we have this > drm_gem_shmem_put_pages_locked() in drm_gem_shmem_free() is because of > this implicit ref hold by the sgt, and IMHO, we should be stricter and > check that pages_use_count == 1 when sgt != NULL and pages_use_count == > 0 otherwise. > > I actually think it's a good thing to try and catch any attempt to call > functions trying lock the resv in a path they're not supposed to. At > least we can decide whether these actions are valid or not in this > context, and provide dedicated helpers for the free path if they are. To me it's a valid use-case. I was going to do it for the virtio-gpu driver for a specific BO type that should be permanently pinned in memory. So I made the BO pinned in the virto_gpu's bo_create() and unpinned it from the virtio-gpu's gem->free(), this is a perfectly valid case to me. Though, in the end I switched to another approach that doesn't require to do the pinning in the virtio-gpu driver. For now we can do it as you suggested, to use custom put_pages() in the shmem_free() since neither of drivers need that. Let's try that. -- Best regards, Dmitry