Re: [PATCH 3/9] drm/i915/gt: Unlock engine-pm after queuing the kernel context switch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 20/11/2019 09:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
In commit a79ca656b648 ("drm/i915: Push the wakeref->count deferral to
the backend"), I erroneously concluded that we last modify the engine
inside __i915_request_commit() meaning that we could enable concurrent
submission for userspace as we enqueued this request. However, this
falls into a trap with other users of the engine->kernel_context waking
up and submitting their request before the idle-switch is queued, with
the result that the kernel_context is executed out-of-sequence most
likely upsetting the GPU and certainly ourselves when we try to retire
the out-of-sequence requests.

As such we need to hold onto the effective engine->kernel_context mutex
lock (via the engine pm mutex proxy) until we have finish queuing the
request to the engine.

v2: Serialise against concurrent intel_gt_retire_requests()
v3: Describe the hairy locking scheme with intel_gt_retire_requests()
for future reference.
v4: Combine timeline->lock and engine pm release; it's hairy.

Fixes: a79ca656b648 ("drm/i915: Push the wakeref->count deferral to the backend")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++----
  1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
index 3c0f490ff2c7..1f517357a268 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
@@ -73,8 +73,25 @@ static inline void __timeline_mark_unlock(struct intel_context *ce,
#endif /* !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) */ +static void
+__intel_timeline_enter_and_pm_release(struct intel_timeline *tl,
+				      struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
+{
+	struct intel_gt_timelines *timelines = &engine->gt->timelines;
+
+	spin_lock(&timelines->lock);
+
+	if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&tl->active_count))
+		list_add_tail(&tl->link, &timelines->active_list);

Hmm with these new part it maybe matches/answers my question from "drm/i915/gt: Close race between engine_park and intel_gt_retire_requests". I think at least. Since it now adds a second place timeline can enter the active_list.

But no, where does the intel_timeline_enter race come from? Can't be userspace submission since they are blocked on wf->lock.

Regards,

Tvrtko

+
+	__intel_wakeref_defer_park(&engine->wakeref);
+
+	spin_unlock(&timelines->lock);
+}
+
  static bool switch_to_kernel_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
  {
+	struct intel_context *ce = engine->kernel_context;
  	struct i915_request *rq;
  	unsigned long flags;
  	bool result = true;
@@ -98,16 +115,31 @@ static bool switch_to_kernel_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
  	 * This should hold true as we can only park the engine after
  	 * retiring the last request, thus all rings should be empty and
  	 * all timelines idle.
+	 *
+	 * For unlocking, there are 2 other parties and the GPU who have a
+	 * stake here.
+	 *
+	 * A new gpu user will be waiting on the engine-pm to start their
+	 * engine_unpark. New waiters are predicated on engine->wakeref.count
+	 * and so intel_wakeref_defer_park() acts like a mutex_unlock of the
+	 * engine->wakeref.
+	 *
+	 * The other party is intel_gt_retire_requests(), which is walking the
+	 * list of active timelines looking for completions. Meanwhile as soon
+	 * as we call __i915_request_queue(), the GPU may complete our request.
+	 * Ergo, if we put ourselves on the timelines.active_list
+	 * (se intel_timeline_enter()) before we increment the
+	 * engine->wakeref.count, we may see the request completion and retire
+	 * it causing an undeflow of the engine->wakeref.
  	 */
-	flags = __timeline_mark_lock(engine->kernel_context);
+	flags = __timeline_mark_lock(ce);
+	GEM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(&ce->timeline->active_count) < 0);
- rq = __i915_request_create(engine->kernel_context, GFP_NOWAIT);
+	rq = __i915_request_create(ce, GFP_NOWAIT);
  	if (IS_ERR(rq))
  		/* Context switch failed, hope for the best! Maybe reset? */
  		goto out_unlock;
- intel_timeline_enter(i915_request_timeline(rq));
-
  	/* Check again on the next retirement. */
  	engine->wakeref_serial = engine->serial + 1;
  	i915_request_add_active_barriers(rq);
@@ -116,13 +148,14 @@ static bool switch_to_kernel_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
  	rq->sched.attr.priority = I915_PRIORITY_BARRIER;
  	__i915_request_commit(rq);
- /* Release our exclusive hold on the engine */
-	__intel_wakeref_defer_park(&engine->wakeref);
  	__i915_request_queue(rq, NULL);
+ /* Expose ourselves to intel_gt_retire_requests() and new submission */
+	__intel_timeline_enter_and_pm_release(ce->timeline, engine);
+
  	result = false;
  out_unlock:
-	__timeline_mark_unlock(engine->kernel_context, flags);
+	__timeline_mark_unlock(ce, flags);
  	return result;
  }
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux