Am 14.07.20 um 12:49 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:12:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
My dma-fence lockdep annotations caught an inversion because we
allocate memory where we really shouldn't:
kmem_cache_alloc+0x2b/0x6d0
amdgpu_fence_emit+0x30/0x330 [amdgpu]
amdgpu_ib_schedule+0x306/0x550 [amdgpu]
amdgpu_job_run+0x10f/0x260 [amdgpu]
drm_sched_main+0x1b9/0x490 [gpu_sched]
kthread+0x12e/0x150
Trouble right now is that lockdep only validates against GFP_FS, which
would be good enough for shrinkers. But for mmu_notifiers we actually
need !GFP_ATOMIC, since they can be called from any page laundering,
even if GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO are set.
I guess we should improve the lockdep annotations for
fs_reclaim_acquire/release.
Ofc real fix is to properly preallocate this fence and stuff it into
the amdgpu job structure. But GFP_ATOMIC gets the lockdep splat out of
the way.
v2: Two more allocations in scheduler paths.
Frist one:
__kmalloc+0x58/0x720
amdgpu_vmid_grab+0x100/0xca0 [amdgpu]
amdgpu_job_dependency+0xf9/0x120 [amdgpu]
drm_sched_entity_pop_job+0x3f/0x440 [gpu_sched]
drm_sched_main+0xf9/0x490 [gpu_sched]
Second one:
kmem_cache_alloc+0x2b/0x6d0
amdgpu_sync_fence+0x7e/0x110 [amdgpu]
amdgpu_vmid_grab+0x86b/0xca0 [amdgpu]
amdgpu_job_dependency+0xf9/0x120 [amdgpu]
drm_sched_entity_pop_job+0x3f/0x440 [gpu_sched]
drm_sched_main+0xf9/0x490 [gpu_sched]
Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
Has anyone from amd side started looking into how to fix this properly?
Yeah I checked both and neither are any real problem.
I looked a bit into fixing this with mempool, and the big guarantee we
need is that
- there's a hard upper limit on how many allocations we minimally need to
guarantee forward progress. And the entire vmid allocation and
amdgpu_sync_fence stuff kinda makes me question that's a valid
assumption.
We do have hard upper limits for those.
The VMID allocation could as well just return the fence instead of
putting it into the sync object IIRC. So that just needs some cleanup
and can avoid the allocation entirely.
The hardware fence is limited by the number of submissions we can have
concurrently on the ring buffers, so also not a problem at all.
Regards,
Christian.
- mempool_free must be called without any locks in the way which are held
while we call mempool_alloc. Otherwise we again have a nice deadlock
with no forward progress. I tried auditing that, but got lost in amdgpu
and scheduler code. Some lockdep annotations for mempool.c might help,
but they're not going to catch everything. Plus it would be again manual
annotations because this is yet another cross-release issue. So not sure
that helps at all.
iow, not sure what to do here. Ideas?
Cheers, Daniel
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c | 2 +-
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c | 2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c
index 8d84975885cd..a089a827fdfe 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ int amdgpu_fence_emit(struct amdgpu_ring *ring, struct dma_fence **f,
uint32_t seq;
int r;
- fence = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_fence_slab, GFP_KERNEL);
+ fence = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_fence_slab, GFP_ATOMIC);
if (fence == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
index 267fa45ddb66..a333ca2d4ddd 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
@@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static int amdgpu_vmid_grab_idle(struct amdgpu_vm *vm,
if (ring->vmid_wait && !dma_fence_is_signaled(ring->vmid_wait))
return amdgpu_sync_fence(sync, ring->vmid_wait);
- fences = kmalloc_array(sizeof(void *), id_mgr->num_ids, GFP_KERNEL);
+ fences = kmalloc_array(sizeof(void *), id_mgr->num_ids, GFP_ATOMIC);
if (!fences)
return -ENOMEM;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c
index 8ea6c49529e7..af22b526cec9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ int amdgpu_sync_fence(struct amdgpu_sync *sync, struct dma_fence *f)
if (amdgpu_sync_add_later(sync, f))
return 0;
- e = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_sync_slab, GFP_KERNEL);
+ e = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_sync_slab, GFP_ATOMIC);
if (!e)
return -ENOMEM;
--
2.27.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
