On 07/08/2020 09:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
Since preempt-to-busy, we may unsubmit a request while it is still on
the HW and completes asynchronously. That means it may be retired and in
the process destroy the virtual engine (as the user has closed their
context), but that engine may still be holding onto the unsubmitted
compelted request. Therefore we need to potentially cleanup the old
request on destroying the virtual engine. We also have to keep the
virtual_engine alive until after the sibling's execlists_dequeue() have
finished peeking into the virtual engines, for which we serialise with
RCU.
v2: Be paranoid and flush the tasklet as well.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
index 0c632f15f677..87528393276c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
@@ -182,6 +182,7 @@
struct virtual_engine {
struct intel_engine_cs base;
struct intel_context context;
+ struct rcu_work rcu;
/*
* We allow only a single request through the virtual engine at a time
@@ -5387,33 +5388,47 @@ static struct list_head *virtual_queue(struct virtual_engine *ve)
return &ve->base.execlists.default_priolist.requests[0];
}
-static void virtual_context_destroy(struct kref *kref)
+static void rcu_virtual_context_destroy(struct work_struct *wrk)
{
struct virtual_engine *ve =
- container_of(kref, typeof(*ve), context.ref);
+ container_of(wrk, typeof(*ve), rcu.work);
unsigned int n;
- GEM_BUG_ON(!list_empty(virtual_queue(ve)));
- GEM_BUG_ON(ve->request);
GEM_BUG_ON(ve->context.inflight);
+ if (unlikely(ve->request)) {
+ struct i915_request *old;
+
+ spin_lock_irq(&ve->base.active.lock);
+
+ old = fetch_and_zero(&ve->request);
+ if (old) {
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(old));
+ __i915_request_submit(old);
+ i915_request_put(old);
+ }
+
+ spin_unlock_irq(&ve->base.active.lock);
+ }
+
for (n = 0; n < ve->num_siblings; n++) {
struct intel_engine_cs *sibling = ve->siblings[n];
struct rb_node *node = &ve->nodes[sibling->id].rb;
- unsigned long flags;
if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(node))
continue;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&sibling->active.lock, flags);
+ spin_lock_irq(&sibling->active.lock);
/* Detachment is lazily performed in the execlists tasklet */
if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(node))
rb_erase_cached(node, &sibling->execlists.virtual);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sibling->active.lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sibling->active.lock);
}
- GEM_BUG_ON(__tasklet_is_scheduled(&ve->base.execlists.tasklet));
Hm why remove this assert? I understood the point of doing this via rcu
is to guarantee tasklet would be finished, if it was queued or in progress.
+
+ tasklet_kill(&ve->base.execlists.tasklet);
And then if this tasklet_kill actually does something it collapses my
image of how this race and the fix.
Regards,
Tvrtko
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!list_empty(virtual_queue(ve)));
if (ve->context.state)
__execlists_context_fini(&ve->context);
@@ -5425,6 +5440,25 @@ static void virtual_context_destroy(struct kref *kref)
kfree(ve);
}
+static void virtual_context_destroy(struct kref *kref)
+{
+ struct virtual_engine *ve =
+ container_of(kref, typeof(*ve), context.ref);
+
+ /*
+ * When destroying the virtual engine, we have to be aware that
+ * it may still be in use from an hardirq/softirq context causing
+ * the resubmission of a completed request (background completion
+ * due to preempt-to-busy). Before we can free the engine, we need
+ * to flush the submission code and tasklets that are still potentially
+ * accessing the engine. Flushing the tasklets require process context,
+ * and since we can guard the resubmit onto the engine with an RCU read
+ * lock, we can delegate the free of the engine to an RCU worker.
+ */
+ INIT_RCU_WORK(&ve->rcu, rcu_virtual_context_destroy);
+ queue_rcu_work(system_wq, &ve->rcu);
+}
+
static void virtual_engine_initial_hint(struct virtual_engine *ve)
{
int swp;
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
