Quoting Daniel Vetter (2017-10-05 14:22:06)
> 4.14-rc1 gained the fancy new cross-release support in lockdep, which
> seems to have uncovered a few more rules about what is allowed and
> isn't.
>
> This one here seems to indicate that allocating a work-queue while
> holding mmap_sem is a no-go, so let's try to preallocate it.
>
> Of course another way to break this chain would be somewhere in the
> cpu hotplug code, since this isn't the only trace we're finding now
> which goes through msr_create_device.
>
> Full lockdep splat:
>
> ======================================================
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.14.0-rc3-CI-CI_DRM_3179+ #1 Tainted: G U
> ------------------------------------------------------
> kworker/3:4/562 is trying to acquire lock:
> (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: [<ffffffff8113d4bc>] stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0136588>] i915_reset_device+0x1e8/0x260 [i915]
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #6 (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
> mutex_lock_interruptible_nested+0x1b/0x20
> i915_mutex_lock_interruptible+0x51/0x130 [i915]
> i915_gem_fault+0x209/0x650 [i915]
> __do_fault+0x1e/0x80
> __handle_mm_fault+0xa08/0xed0
> handle_mm_fault+0x156/0x300
> __do_page_fault+0x2c5/0x570
> do_page_fault+0x28/0x250
> page_fault+0x22/0x30
>
> -> #5 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> __might_fault+0x68/0x90
> _copy_to_user+0x23/0x70
> filldir+0xa5/0x120
> dcache_readdir+0xf9/0x170
> iterate_dir+0x69/0x1a0
> SyS_getdents+0xa5/0x140
> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
>
> -> #4 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5){++++}:
> down_write+0x3b/0x70
> handle_create+0xcb/0x1e0
> devtmpfsd+0x139/0x180
> kthread+0x152/0x190
> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
>
> -> #3 ((complete)&req.done){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> wait_for_common+0x58/0x210
> wait_for_completion+0x1d/0x20
> devtmpfs_create_node+0x13d/0x160
> device_add+0x5eb/0x620
> device_create_groups_vargs+0xe0/0xf0
> device_create+0x3a/0x40
> msr_device_create+0x2b/0x40
> cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xc9/0xbf0
> cpuhp_thread_fun+0x17b/0x240
> smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
> kthread+0x152/0x190
> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
>
> -> #2 (cpuhp_state-up){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> cpuhp_issue_call+0x133/0x1c0
> __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x139/0x2a0
> __cpuhp_setup_state+0x46/0x60
> page_writeback_init+0x43/0x67
> pagecache_init+0x3d/0x42
> start_kernel+0x3a8/0x3fc
> x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> x86_64_start_kernel+0x6d/0x70
> verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb
>
> -> #1 (cpuhp_state_mutex){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
> mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
> __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x53/0x2a0
> __cpuhp_setup_state+0x46/0x60
> page_alloc_init+0x28/0x30
> start_kernel+0x145/0x3fc
> x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> x86_64_start_kernel+0x6d/0x70
> verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb
>
> -> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
> check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
> stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> i915_gem_set_wedged+0x1a/0x20 [i915]
> i915_reset+0xb9/0x230 [i915]
> i915_reset_device+0x1f6/0x260 [i915]
> i915_handle_error+0x2d8/0x430 [i915]
> hangcheck_declare_hang+0xd3/0xf0 [i915]
> i915_hangcheck_elapsed+0x262/0x2d0 [i915]
> process_one_work+0x233/0x660
> worker_thread+0x4e/0x3b0
> kthread+0x152/0x190
> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Chain exists of:
> cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev->struct_mutex
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
> lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 3 locks held by kworker/3:4/562:
> #0: ("events_long"){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8109c64a>] process_one_work+0x1aa/0x660
> #1: ((&(&i915->gpu_error.hangcheck_work)->work)){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8109c64a>] process_one_work+0x1aa/0x660
> #2: (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0136588>] i915_reset_device+0x1e8/0x260 [i915]
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 3 PID: 562 Comm: kworker/3:4 Tainted: G U 4.14.0-rc3-CI-CI_DRM_3179+ #1
> Hardware name: /NUC7i5BNB, BIOS BNKBL357.86A.0048.2017.0704.1415 07/04/2017
> Workqueue: events_long i915_hangcheck_elapsed [i915]
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x68/0x9f
> print_circular_bug+0x235/0x3c0
> ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
> check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
> ? irq_work_queue+0x86/0xe0
> ? wake_up_klogd+0x53/0x70
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> ? __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> ? stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> ? i915_gem_object_truncate+0x50/0x50 [i915]
> cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
> ? stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
> i915_gem_set_wedged+0x1a/0x20 [i915]
> i915_reset+0xb9/0x230 [i915]
> i915_reset_device+0x1f6/0x260 [i915]
> ? gen8_gt_irq_ack+0x170/0x170 [i915]
> ? work_on_cpu_safe+0x60/0x60
> i915_handle_error+0x2d8/0x430 [i915]
> ? vsnprintf+0xd1/0x4b0
> ? scnprintf+0x3a/0x70
> hangcheck_declare_hang+0xd3/0xf0 [i915]
> ? intel_runtime_pm_put+0x56/0xa0 [i915]
> i915_hangcheck_elapsed+0x262/0x2d0 [i915]
> process_one_work+0x233/0x660
> worker_thread+0x4e/0x3b0
> kthread+0x152/0x190
> ? process_one_work+0x660/0x660
> ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> Setting dangerous option reset - tainting kernel
> i915 0000:00:02.0: Resetting chip after gpu hang
> Setting dangerous option reset - tainting kernel
> i915 0000:00:02.0: Resetting chip after gpu hang
>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> --
>
> Patch itself pretty much untested, I just want to figure out whether
> we should fix this (and similar backtraces going through
> msr_create_device) in i915, or whether the cpu hotplug folks will take
> care of them all.
Looking at the patch, we shrink the time under mmap_sem/mm_lock so seems
sensible (just from that pov).
> Afaict this is not because of changes in 4.14-rc1, but really only due
> to the new cross-release checks.
>
> Note that the above trace is on top of -rc3 (plus plenty of drm/i915
> stuff), so should have Peter's recent lockdep fixes for cpu up vs.
> down already.
> -Daniel
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c | 65 +++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> index 2d4996de7331..afe166921572 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> @@ -160,36 +160,6 @@ static const struct mmu_notifier_ops i915_gem_userptr_notifier = {
> .invalidate_range_start = i915_gem_userptr_mn_invalidate_range_start,
> };
>
> -static struct i915_mmu_notifier *
> -i915_mmu_notifier_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
> -{
> - struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn;
> - int ret;
> -
> - mn = kmalloc(sizeof(*mn), GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (mn == NULL)
> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> -
> - spin_lock_init(&mn->lock);
> - mn->mn.ops = &i915_gem_userptr_notifier;
> - mn->objects = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
> - mn->wq = alloc_workqueue("i915-userptr-release", WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
> - if (mn->wq == NULL) {
> - kfree(mn);
> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> - }
> -
> - /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
> - ret = __mmu_notifier_register(&mn->mn, mm);
> - if (ret) {
> - destroy_workqueue(mn->wq);
> - kfree(mn);
> - return ERR_PTR(ret);
> - }
> -
> - return mn;
> -}
> -
> static void
> i915_gem_userptr_release__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> {
> @@ -210,23 +180,46 @@ i915_gem_userptr_release__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> static struct i915_mmu_notifier *
> i915_mmu_notifier_find(struct i915_mm_struct *mm)
> {
> - struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn = mm->mn;
> + struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn = mm->mn, *free_mn;
> + int ret;
>
> mn = mm->mn;
> if (mn)
> return mn;
>
> + free_mn = kmalloc(sizeof(*free_mn), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (free_mn == NULL)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + spin_lock_init(&free_mn->lock);
> + free_mn->mn.ops = &i915_gem_userptr_notifier;
> + free_mn->objects = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
> + /* must allocate wq outside of mm->mmap_sem */
> + free_mn->wq = alloc_workqueue("i915-userptr-release", WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
> + if (free_mn->wq == NULL) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto err_kfree;
> + }
> +
> down_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
> mutex_lock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
> - if ((mn = mm->mn) == NULL) {
> - mn = i915_mmu_notifier_create(mm->mm);
> - if (!IS_ERR(mn))
> - mm->mn = mn;
> + if (mm->mn == NULL) {
> + /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
> + ret = __mmu_notifier_register(&free_mn->mn, mm->mm);
> + if (ret == 0)
> + mm->mn = mn =free_mn;
> + } else {
> + mn = mm->mn;
> }
> mutex_unlock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
> up_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
>
> - return mn;
> +err_wq:
> + destroy_workqueue(free_mn->wq);
> +err_kfree:
> + kfree(free_mn);
> +
> + return ret == 0 ? mn : ERR_PTR(ret);
> }
I had a go,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
index 2d4996de7331..f9b3406401af 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
@@ -164,7 +164,6 @@ static struct i915_mmu_notifier *
i915_mmu_notifier_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn;
- int ret;
mn = kmalloc(sizeof(*mn), GFP_KERNEL);
if (mn == NULL)
@@ -179,14 +178,6 @@ i915_mmu_notifier_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
}
- /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
- ret = __mmu_notifier_register(&mn->mn, mm);
- if (ret) {
- destroy_workqueue(mn->wq);
- kfree(mn);
- return ERR_PTR(ret);
- }
-
return mn;
}
@@ -210,23 +201,37 @@ i915_gem_userptr_release__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
static struct i915_mmu_notifier *
i915_mmu_notifier_find(struct i915_mm_struct *mm)
{
- struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn = mm->mn;
+ struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn;
+ int err;
mn = mm->mn;
if (mn)
return mn;
+ mn = i915_mmu_notifier_create(mm->mm);
+ if (IS_ERR(mn))
+ return mn;
+
+ err = 0;
down_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
mutex_lock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
- if ((mn = mm->mn) == NULL) {
- mn = i915_mmu_notifier_create(mm->mm);
- if (!IS_ERR(mn))
- mm->mn = mn;
+ if (mm->mn == NULL) {
+ /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
+ err = __mmu_notifier_register(&mn->mn, mm->mm);
+ if (!err) {
+ /* Protected by mm_lock */
+ mm->mn = fetch_and_zero(&mn);
+ }
}
mutex_unlock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
up_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
- return mn;
+ if (mn) {
+ destroy_workqueue(mn->wq);
+ kfree(mn);
+ }
+
+ return err ? ERR_PTR(err) : mm->mn;
}
So not sold that we want to keep the separate single use
i915_mmu_notifier_create() (the onion unwind is pretty solid).
But it's safe enough to return mm->mn (it's stable once we've proved it's
set) and that allows us to avoid to a second free_mn. I'm prefer the
register above as I think it's that touch clearer.
In particular, I believe your use of free_mn is buggy as you still free
it after assigning it to mm->mn.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
