On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:42:17 +0100, Sagar Arun Kamble
<sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This patch fixes lockdep issue due to circular locking dependency of
struct_mutex, i_mutex_key, mmap_sem, relay_channels_mutex.
For GuC log relay channel we create debugfs file that requires
i_mutex_key
lock and we are doing that under struct_mutex. So we introduced newer
dependency as:
&dev->struct_mutex --> &sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#3 --> &mm->mmap_sem
However, there is dependency from mmap_sem to struct_mutex. Hence we
separate the relay create/destroy operation from under struct_mutex.
... <snip>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 80dc679..b45be0d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -2467,7 +2467,6 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_get(void *data,
u64 *val)
static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data, u64 val)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
- int ret;
if (!HAS_GUC(dev_priv))
return -ENODEV;
@@ -2475,16 +2474,7 @@ static int i915_guc_log_control_set(void *data,
u64 val)
if (!dev_priv->guc.log.vma)
return -EINVAL;
- ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
-
- intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
- ret = i915_guc_log_control(dev_priv, val);
- intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
-
- mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
- return ret;
+ return i915_guc_log_control(dev_priv, val);
I hope that one day we change signature of this function to
int intel_guc_log_control(struct intel_guc *guc, u64 control);
... <snip>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c
index ea30e7c..cab3c98 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.c
@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ void intel_guc_init_early(struct intel_guc *guc)
intel_guc_ct_init_early(&guc->ct);
mutex_init(&guc->send_mutex);
+ mutex_init(&guc->log.runtime.relay_lock);
Maybe this can be done in intel_guc_loc.c (or .h) as
void intel_guc_log_init_early() { }
guc->send = intel_guc_send_nop;
guc->notify = gen8_guc_raise_irq;
}
@@ -87,8 +88,10 @@ int intel_guc_init_wq(struct intel_guc *guc)
*/
guc->log.runtime.flush_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("i915-guc_log",
WQ_HIGHPRI | WQ_FREEZABLE);
- if (!guc->log.runtime.flush_wq)
+ if (!guc->log.runtime.flush_wq) {
+ DRM_ERROR("Couldn't allocate workqueue for GuC log\n");
return -ENOMEM;
+ }
/*
* Even though both sending GuC action, and adding a new workitem to
@@ -109,6 +112,8 @@ int intel_guc_init_wq(struct intel_guc *guc)
WQ_HIGHPRI);
if (!guc->preempt_wq) {
destroy_workqueue(guc->log.runtime.flush_wq);
+ DRM_ERROR("Couldn't allocate workqueue for GuC "
+ "preemption\n");
return -ENOMEM;
}
}
... <snip>
static void capture_logs_work(struct work_struct *work)
@@ -363,12 +377,12 @@ static int guc_log_runtime_create(struct intel_guc
*guc)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc);
void *vaddr;
- struct rchan *guc_log_relay_chan;
- size_t n_subbufs, subbuf_size;
int ret;
lockdep_assert_held(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!guc_log_has_relay(guc));
+
Do we need this line?
GEM_BUG_ON(guc_log_has_runtime(guc));
ret = i915_gem_object_set_to_wc_domain(guc->log.vma->obj, true);
@@ -387,8 +401,40 @@ static int guc_log_runtime_create(struct intel_guc
*guc)
guc->log.runtime.buf_addr = vaddr;
+ INIT_WORK(&guc->log.runtime.flush_work, capture_logs_work);
I'm not sure about other BKMs, but I prefer to not delay such
initialization
and perform them in functions like init_early
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static void guc_log_runtime_destroy(struct intel_guc *guc)
+{
+ /*
+ * It's possible that the runtime stuff was never allocated because
+ * GuC log was disabled at the boot time.
+ **/
Is this correct comment style ?
+ if (!guc_log_has_runtime(guc))
+ return;
+
+ i915_gem_object_unpin_map(guc->log.vma->obj);
+ guc->log.runtime.buf_addr = NULL;
+}
+
... <snip>
@@ -605,7 +681,11 @@ int i915_guc_log_control(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv, u64 control_val)
}
/* GuC logging is currently the only user of Guc2Host interrupts */
+ mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
+ intel_runtime_pm_get(dev_priv);
gen9_enable_guc_interrupts(dev_priv);
+ intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
+ mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
Maybe pm_get/lock/xxx/unlock/pm_put would be better order ?
... <snip>
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
index f78a17b..b119e94 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.c
@@ -236,28 +236,49 @@ static void guc_disable_communication(struct
intel_guc *guc)
guc->send = intel_guc_send_nop;
}
-int intel_uc_init_wq(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+int intel_uc_init_misc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
{
+ struct intel_guc *guc = &dev_priv->guc;
int ret;
if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv))
return 0;
- ret = intel_guc_init_wq(&dev_priv->guc);
+ ret = intel_guc_init_wq(guc);
if (ret) {
DRM_ERROR("Couldn't allocate workqueues for GuC\n");
- return ret;
+ goto err;
+ }
+
Hmm, maybe below code
+ mutex_lock(&guc->log.runtime.relay_lock);
+ ret = intel_guc_log_relay_create(guc);
+ mutex_unlock(&guc->log.runtime.relay_lock);
+
+ if (ret) {
+ DRM_ERROR("Couldn't allocate relay for GuC log\n");
+ goto err_relay;
can be done in intel_guc_log.c as kind of init function ?
}
return 0;
+
+err_relay:
+ intel_guc_fini_wq(guc);
+err:
+ return ret;
}
-void intel_uc_fini_wq(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
+void intel_uc_fini_misc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
{
+ struct intel_guc *guc = &dev_priv->guc;
+
if (!USES_GUC(dev_priv))
return;
- intel_guc_fini_wq(&dev_priv->guc);
+ intel_guc_fini_wq(guc);
+
+ mutex_lock(&guc->log.runtime.relay_lock);
+ intel_guc_log_relay_destroy(guc);
+ mutex_unlock(&guc->log.runtime.relay_lock);
Maybe lock/unlock can be done inside intel_guc_log_relay_destroy ?
same with intel_guc_log_relay_create.
}
int intel_uc_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
index 8a72497..f2984e0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
@@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
void intel_uc_init_mmio(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void intel_uc_init_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void intel_uc_fini_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
-int intel_uc_init_wq(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
-void intel_uc_fini_wq(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
+int intel_uc_init_misc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
+void intel_uc_fini_misc(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
int intel_uc_init_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
void intel_uc_fini_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
int intel_uc_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
