On Thu, 2024-06-27 at 10:25 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 27.06.24 um 10:04 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 05:58:02PM +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > I'm seeing the below lockdep splat 1) with the xe driver in an
> > > imported
> > > dma-buf object destruction path.
>
> Mhm strange.
>
> > >
> > > It's not because we hold the dma_resv lock at that point, but
> > > rather
> > > because we hold *another* dma_resv lock at that point, and the
> > > dma_resv
> > > detach happens when the object is idle, in this case it was idle
> > > at the
> > > final put(), and dma_buf_detach() is called in the putting
> > > process.
> > >
> > > Holding another dma-buf lock might happen as part of
> > > drm_exec_unlock_all, or simply if the wider vm dma_resv was held
> > > at
> > > object put time, so it's not an uncommon pattern, even if the
> > > drm_exec
> > > instance can be fixed by putting all bos after unlocking them
> > > all.
> > >
> > > Two solutions coming to mind here:
> > >
> > > 1) Provide a dma_buf_detach_locked()
> > This smells way too much like the endless headaches we had with
> > drm_gem_object_put_locked and friends against
> > drm_device.struct_mutex. Or
> > I'm not understanding what you're doing, because I'm pretty sure
> > you have
> > to take the dma_resv lock on final put() of imported objects.
> > Because that
> > final put() is of the import wrapper, the exporter (and other
> > importers)
> > can still get at that object and so dma_resv_lock is very much
> > needed.
> >
> > Or it's a completely different final put(), but I have no idea how
> > you get
> > that on an imported dma_buf.
> >
> > > 2) Have TTM always take the delayed delete path for imported dma-
> > > buf
> > > objects.
> > >
> > > I'd prefer 1) since I think the correct place to call this is in
> > > the
> > > TTM callback delete_mem_notify() where the bo is already locked,
> > > and I
> > > figure non-TTM gem backends may come to suffer from the same
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > Opinions, suggestions?
> > Imo 2) or trying to push the object puts outside of the
> > dma_resv_lock.
>
> IIRC I've stumbled over this issue before with TTM but though that
> I've
> fixed it.
>
> I mean no objections from my side to change drm_exec_fini() to
> something
> like this:
>
> drm_exec_for_each_locked_object_reverse(exec, index, obj)
> dma_resv_unlock(obj->resv);
>
> drm_exec_for_each_locked_object_reverse(exec, index, obj)
> drm_gem_object_put(obj);
>
> but in general that the last reference is dropped while holding a
> different reservation object is not something special. For example
> that
> happens all the time in TTMs eviction code.
>
> So at least for TTM I would say we should move cleanup of imported
> BOs
> to the worker. But not sure if that covers everything.
I'm fine with this. It covers all the TTM use-cases, I think.
Thanks,
/Thomas
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> > The
> > latter is imo natural, since usually you grab references, then
> > lock. And
> > this even holds for at least the slow path of lru eviction, because
> > you
> > need to drop all locks and then do a ww_mutex_lock_slow, and that
> > requires
> > that you can hold references to unlocked objects.
> >
> > But 2) alone is imo fine, dma_buf have become really big objects
> > that go
> > across drivers, extremely similar to struct file, and that is doing
> > the
> > delayed final put unconditionally since years too, using task_work.
> > It's
> > simply a solid design.
> >
> > Cheers, Sima
> >
> > > [1]
> > > [ 99.136161] ============================================
> > > [ 99.136162] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected
> > > [ 99.136163] 6.10.0-rc2+ #6 Tainted: G U
> > > [ 99.136165] --------------------------------------------
> > > [ 99.136166] glxgears:sh0/4675 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > [ 99.136167] ffff9967dcdd91a8
> > > (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-
> > > {3:3}, at: dma_buf_detach+0x3b/0xf0
> > > [ 99.136184]
> > > but task is already holding lock:
> > > [ 99.136186] ffff9967d8c145a8
> > > (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-
> > > {3:3}, at: drm_exec_lock_obj+0x49/0x2b0 [drm_exec]
> > > [ 99.136191]
> > > other info that might help us debug this:
> > > [ 99.136192] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > >
> > > [ 99.136194] CPU0
> > > [ 99.136194] ----
> > > [ 99.136195] lock(reservation_ww_class_mutex);
> > > [ 99.136197] lock(reservation_ww_class_mutex);
> > > [ 99.136199]
> > > *** DEADLOCK ***
> > >
> > > [ 99.136199] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
> > >
> > > [ 99.136200] 5 locks held by glxgears:sh0/4675:
> > > [ 99.136202] #0: ffff9967d8c104c8 (&xef->vm.lock){+.+.}-{3:3},
> > > at:
> > > xe_file_close+0xde/0x1c0 [xe]
> > > [ 99.136272] #1: ffff9967d5bb7480 (&vm->lock){++++}-{3:3}, at:
> > > xe_vm_close_and_put+0x161/0x9b0 [xe]
> > > [ 99.136350] #2: ffff9967ef88a970 (&val->lock){.+.+}-{3:3},
> > > at:
> > > xe_validation_ctx_init+0x6d/0x70 [xe]
> > > [ 99.136440] #3: ffffbd6a085577b8
> > > (reservation_ww_class_acquire){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> > > xe_vma_destroy_unlocked+0x7f/0xe0 [xe]
> > > [ 99.136546] #4: ffff9967d8c145a8
> > > (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> > > drm_exec_lock_obj+0x49/0x2b0 [drm_exec]
> > > [ 99.136552]
> > > stack backtrace:
> > > [ 99.136553] CPU: 10 PID: 4675 Comm: glxgears:sh0 Tainted:
> > > G U
> > > 6.10.0-rc2+ #6
> > > [ 99.136555] Hardware name: ASUS System Product Name/PRIME
> > > B560M-A
> > > AC, BIOS 2001 02/01/2023
> > > [ 99.136557] Call Trace:
> > > [ 99.136558] <TASK>
> > > [ 99.136560] dump_stack_lvl+0x77/0xb0
> > > [ 99.136564] __lock_acquire+0x1232/0x2160
> > > [ 99.136569] lock_acquire+0xcb/0x2d0
> > > [ 99.136570] ? dma_buf_detach+0x3b/0xf0
> > > [ 99.136574] ? __lock_acquire+0x417/0x2160
> > > [ 99.136577] __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.0+0xd0/0x13b0
> > > [ 99.136580] ? dma_buf_detach+0x3b/0xf0
> > > [ 99.136584] ? dma_buf_detach+0x3b/0xf0
> > > [ 99.136588] ? ww_mutex_lock+0x2b/0x90
> > > [ 99.136590] ww_mutex_lock+0x2b/0x90
> > > [ 99.136592] dma_buf_detach+0x3b/0xf0
> > > [ 99.136595] drm_prime_gem_destroy+0x2f/0x40 [drm]
> > > [ 99.136638] xe_ttm_bo_destroy+0x32/0x220 [xe]
> > > [ 99.136734] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0x3a/0x290
> > > [ 99.136738] drm_exec_unlock_all+0xa1/0xd0 [drm_exec]
> > > [ 99.136741] drm_exec_fini+0x12/0xb0 [drm_exec]
> > > [ 99.136743] xe_validation_ctx_fini+0x15/0x40 [xe]
> > > [ 99.136848] xe_vma_destroy_unlocked+0xb1/0xe0 [xe]
> > > [ 99.136954] xe_vm_close_and_put+0x41a/0x9b0 [xe]
> > > [ 99.137056] ? xa_find+0xe3/0x1e0
> > > [ 99.137060] xe_file_close+0x10a/0x1c0 [xe]
> > > [ 99.137157] drm_file_free+0x22a/0x280 [drm]
> > > [ 99.137193] drm_release_noglobal+0x22/0x70 [drm]
> > > [ 99.137227] __fput+0xf1/0x2d0
> > > [ 99.137231] task_work_run+0x59/0x90
> > > [ 99.137235] do_exit+0x330/0xb40
> > > [ 99.137238] do_group_exit+0x36/0xa0
> > > [ 99.137241] get_signal+0xbd2/0xbe0
> > > [ 99.137245] arch_do_signal_or_restart+0x3e/0x240
> > > [ 99.137249] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x1e7/0x290
> > > [ 99.137252] do_syscall_64+0xa1/0x180
> > > [ 99.137255] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x23/0x40
> > > [ 99.137257] ? look_up_lock_class+0x6f/0x120
> > > [ 99.137261] ? __lock_acquire+0x417/0x2160
> > > [ 99.137264] ? lock_acquire+0xcb/0x2d0
> > > [ 99.137266] ? __set_task_comm+0x28/0x1e0
> > > [ 99.137268] ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
> > > [ 99.137271] ? __set_task_comm+0xe1/0x1e0
> > > [ 99.137273] ? lock_release+0xca/0x290
> > > [ 99.137277] ? __do_sys_prctl+0x245/0xab0
> > > [ 99.137279] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0xde/0x190
> > > [ 99.137281] ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0xb0/0x290
> > > [ 99.137284] ? do_syscall_64+0xa1/0x180
> > > [ 99.137286] ? cpuset_cpus_allowed+0x36/0x140
> > > [ 99.137289] ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
> > > [ 99.137291] ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80
> > > [ 99.137294] ? __sched_setaffinity+0x78/0x240
> > > [ 99.137297] ? kfree+0xe2/0x310
> > > [ 99.137301] ? kfree+0x202/0x310
> > > [ 99.137303] ? __sched_setaffinity+0x78/0x240
> > > [ 99.137305] ? __x64_sys_sched_setaffinity+0x69/0xb0
> > > [ 99.137307] ? kfree+0xe2/0x310
> > > [ 99.137310] ? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0xde/0x190
> > > [ 99.137312] ? syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0xb0/0x290
> > > [ 99.137315] ? do_syscall_64+0xa1/0x180
> > > [ 99.137317] ? trace_hardirqs_off+0x4b/0xc0
> > > [ 99.137321] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x45/0xa0
> > > [ 99.137325] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x45/0xa0
> > > [ 99.137327] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x45/0xa0
> > > [ 99.137330] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
> > > [ 99.137333] RIP: 0033:0x7fda70ee6169
> > > [ 99.137351] Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at
> > > 0x7fda70ee613f.
> > > [ 99.137352] RSP: 002b:00007fda5fdffc80 EFLAGS: 00000246
> > > ORIG_RAX:
> > > 00000000000000ca
> > > [ 99.137354] RAX: fffffffffffffe00 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX:
> > > 00007fda70ee6169
> > > [ 99.137356] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000189 RDI:
> > > 0000564a96f45b30
> > > [ 99.137358] RBP: 00007fda5fdffcb0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09:
> > > 00000000ffffffff
> > > [ 99.137359] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12:
> > > 0000000000000000
> > > [ 99.137360] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15:
> > > 0000564a96f45b30
> > > [ 99.137365] </TASK>
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linaro-mm-sig mailing list -- linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-mm-sig-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
