On 18/11/2020 11:24, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-11-18 11:05:24)
On 17/11/2020 11:30, 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.
v3: And flush the tasklet before the engines, as the tasklet may
re-attach an rb_node after our removal from the siblings.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
index 17cb7060eb29..c11433884cf6 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
@@ -5470,44 +5471,90 @@ 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);
+ /* Preempt-to-busy may leave a stale request behind. */
+ 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);
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Flush the tasklet in case it is still running on another core.
+ *
+ * This needs to be done before we remove ourselves from the siblings'
+ * rbtrees as in the case it is running in parallel, it may reinsert
+ * the rb_node into a sibling.
+ */
+ tasklet_kill(&ve->base.execlists.tasklet);
Can it still be running after an RCU period?
I think there is a window between checking to see if the request is
completed and kicking the tasklet, that is not under the rcu lock and
opportunity for the request to be retired, and barrier flushed to drop
the context references.
From where would that check come?
I observed the leaked ve->request, but the tasklet_kill, iirc, is
speculation about possible windows. Admittedly all long test runs have
been with this patch in place for most of the last year.
+ /* Decouple ourselves from the siblings, no more access allowed. */
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));
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!list_empty(virtual_queue(ve)));
if (ve->context.state)
__execlists_context_fini(&ve->context);
intel_context_fini(&ve->context);
intel_engine_free_request_pool(&ve->base);
+ intel_breadcrumbs_free(ve->base.breadcrumbs);
This looks to belong to some other patch.
Some might say I was fixing up an earlier oversight.
Separate patch would be good, with Fixes: probably since it is a memory
leak and one liner.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
