On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:23:14AM -0700, John Harrison wrote:
> On 6/24/2021 00:04, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Hold a reference to the intel_context over life of an i915_request.
> > Without this an i915_request can exist after the context has been
> > destroyed (e.g. request retired, context closed, but user space holds a
> > reference to the request from an out fence). In the case of GuC
> > submission + virtual engine, the engine that the request references is
> > also destroyed which can trigger bad pointer dref in fence ops (e.g.
> Maybe quickly explain a why this is different for GuC submission vs
> execlist? Presumably it is about only decomposing virtual engines to
> physical ones in execlist mode?
>
Yes, it because in execlists we always end up pointing to a physical
engine in the end while in GuC mode we can be pointing to dynamically
allocated virtual engine. I can update the comment.
>
> > i915_fence_get_driver_name). We could likely change
> > i915_fence_get_driver_name to avoid touching the engine but let's just
> > be safe and hold the intel_context reference.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 54 ++++++++++++-----------------
> > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > index de9deb95b8b1..dec5a35c9aa2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > @@ -126,39 +126,17 @@ static void i915_fence_release(struct dma_fence *fence)
> > i915_sw_fence_fini(&rq->semaphore);
> > /*
> > - * Keep one request on each engine for reserved use under mempressure
> > - *
> > - * We do not hold a reference to the engine here and so have to be
> > - * very careful in what rq->engine we poke. The virtual engine is
> > - * referenced via the rq->context and we released that ref during
> > - * i915_request_retire(), ergo we must not dereference a virtual
> > - * engine here. Not that we would want to, as the only consumer of
> > - * the reserved engine->request_pool is the power management parking,
> > - * which must-not-fail, and that is only run on the physical engines.
> > - *
> > - * Since the request must have been executed to be have completed,
> > - * we know that it will have been processed by the HW and will
> > - * not be unsubmitted again, so rq->engine and rq->execution_mask
> > - * at this point is stable. rq->execution_mask will be a single
> > - * bit if the last and _only_ engine it could execution on was a
> > - * physical engine, if it's multiple bits then it started on and
> > - * could still be on a virtual engine. Thus if the mask is not a
> > - * power-of-two we assume that rq->engine may still be a virtual
> > - * engine and so a dangling invalid pointer that we cannot dereference
> > - *
> > - * For example, consider the flow of a bonded request through a virtual
> > - * engine. The request is created with a wide engine mask (all engines
> > - * that we might execute on). On processing the bond, the request mask
> > - * is reduced to one or more engines. If the request is subsequently
> > - * bound to a single engine, it will then be constrained to only
> > - * execute on that engine and never returned to the virtual engine
> > - * after timeslicing away, see __unwind_incomplete_requests(). Thus we
> > - * know that if the rq->execution_mask is a single bit, rq->engine
> > - * can be a physical engine with the exact corresponding mask.
> > + * Keep one request on each engine for reserved use under mempressure,
> > + * do not use with virtual engines as this really is only needed for
> > + * kernel contexts.
> > */
> > - if (is_power_of_2(rq->execution_mask) &&
> > - !cmpxchg(&rq->engine->request_pool, NULL, rq))
> > + if (!intel_engine_is_virtual(rq->engine) &&
> > + !cmpxchg(&rq->engine->request_pool, NULL, rq)) {
> > + intel_context_put(rq->context);
> > return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + intel_context_put(rq->context);
> The put is actually unconditional? So it could be moved before the if?
>
Yep, I think so.
Matt
> John.
>
> > kmem_cache_free(global.slab_requests, rq);
> > }
> > @@ -977,7 +955,18 @@ __i915_request_create(struct intel_context *ce, gfp_t gfp)
> > }
> > }
> > - rq->context = ce;
> > + /*
> > + * Hold a reference to the intel_context over life of an i915_request.
> > + * Without this an i915_request can exist after the context has been
> > + * destroyed (e.g. request retired, context closed, but user space holds
> > + * a reference to the request from an out fence). In the case of GuC
> > + * submission + virtual engine, the engine that the request references
> > + * is also destroyed which can trigger bad pointer dref in fence ops
> > + * (e.g. i915_fence_get_driver_name). We could likely change these
> > + * functions to avoid touching the engine but let's just be safe and
> > + * hold the intel_context reference.
> > + */
> > + rq->context = intel_context_get(ce);
> > rq->engine = ce->engine;
> > rq->ring = ce->ring;
> > rq->execution_mask = ce->engine->mask;
> > @@ -1054,6 +1043,7 @@ __i915_request_create(struct intel_context *ce, gfp_t gfp)
> > GEM_BUG_ON(!list_empty(&rq->sched.waiters_list));
> > err_free:
> > + intel_context_put(ce);
> > kmem_cache_free(global.slab_requests, rq);
> > err_unreserve:
> > intel_context_unpin(ce);
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
