Re: [PATCH 14/27] drm/i915/guc: Don't touch guc_state.sched_state without a lock

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

 



On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 06:20:49PM -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/18/2021 11:16 PM, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Before we did some clever tricks to not use the a lock when touching
> > guc_state.sched_state in certain cases. Don't do that, enforce the use
> > of the lock.
> > 
> > Part of this is removing a dead code path from guc_lrc_desc_pin where a
> > context could be deregistered when the aforementioned function was
> > called from the submission path. Remove this dead code and add a
> > GEM_BUG_ON if this path is ever attempted to be used.
> > 
> > v2:
> >   (kernel test robo )
> >    - Add __maybe_unused to sched_state_is_init()
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 58 ++++++++++---------
> >   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > index 85f96d325048..fa87470ea576 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > @@ -150,11 +150,23 @@ static inline void clr_context_registered(struct intel_context *ce)
> >   #define SCHED_STATE_BLOCKED_MASK	(0xfff << SCHED_STATE_BLOCKED_SHIFT)
> >   static inline void init_sched_state(struct intel_context *ce)
> >   {
> > -	/* Only should be called from guc_lrc_desc_pin() */
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&ce->guc_state.lock);
> >   	atomic_set(&ce->guc_sched_state_no_lock, 0);
> >   	ce->guc_state.sched_state &= SCHED_STATE_BLOCKED_MASK;
> >   }
> > +__maybe_unused
> > +static bool sched_state_is_init(struct intel_context *ce)
> > +{
> > +	/*
> > +	 * XXX: Kernel contexts can have SCHED_STATE_NO_LOCK_REGISTERED after
> > +	 * suspend.
> > +	 */
> 
> This seems like something we want to fix. Not a blocker for this, but we can
> add it to the list.
>

Right, hence the comment in the code.
 
> > +	return !(atomic_read(&ce->guc_sched_state_no_lock) &
> > +		 ~SCHED_STATE_NO_LOCK_REGISTERED) &&
> > +		!(ce->guc_state.sched_state &= ~SCHED_STATE_BLOCKED_MASK);
> > +}
> > +
> >   static inline bool
> >   context_wait_for_deregister_to_register(struct intel_context *ce)
> >   {
> > @@ -165,7 +177,7 @@ context_wait_for_deregister_to_register(struct intel_context *ce)
> >   static inline void
> >   set_context_wait_for_deregister_to_register(struct intel_context *ce)
> >   {
> > -	/* Only should be called from guc_lrc_desc_pin() without lock */
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&ce->guc_state.lock);
> >   	ce->guc_state.sched_state |=
> >   		SCHED_STATE_WAIT_FOR_DEREGISTER_TO_REGISTER;
> >   }
> > @@ -605,9 +617,7 @@ static void scrub_guc_desc_for_outstanding_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc)
> >   	bool pending_disable, pending_enable, deregister, destroyed, banned;
> >   	xa_for_each(&guc->context_lookup, index, ce) {
> > -		/* Flush context */
> >   		spin_lock_irqsave(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> > -		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> >   		/*
> >   		 * Once we are at this point submission_disabled() is guaranteed
> > @@ -623,6 +633,8 @@ static void scrub_guc_desc_for_outstanding_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc)
> >   		banned = context_banned(ce);
> >   		init_sched_state(ce);
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> > +
> >   		if (pending_enable || destroyed || deregister) {
> >   			decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(guc);
> >   			if (deregister)
> > @@ -1325,6 +1337,7 @@ static int guc_lrc_desc_pin(struct intel_context *ce, bool loop)
> >   	int ret = 0;
> >   	GEM_BUG_ON(!engine->mask);
> > +	GEM_BUG_ON(!sched_state_is_init(ce));
> >   	/*
> >   	 * Ensure LRC + CT vmas are is same region as write barrier is done
> > @@ -1353,7 +1366,6 @@ static int guc_lrc_desc_pin(struct intel_context *ce, bool loop)
> >   	desc->priority = ce->guc_prio;
> >   	desc->context_flags = CONTEXT_REGISTRATION_FLAG_KMD;
> >   	guc_context_policy_init(engine, desc);
> > -	init_sched_state(ce);
> >   	/*
> >   	 * The context_lookup xarray is used to determine if the hardware
> > @@ -1364,26 +1376,23 @@ static int guc_lrc_desc_pin(struct intel_context *ce, bool loop)
> >   	 * registering this context.
> >   	 */
> >   	if (context_registered) {
> > +		bool disabled;
> > +		unsigned long flags;
> > +
> >   		trace_intel_context_steal_guc_id(ce);
> > -		if (!loop) {
> > +		GEM_BUG_ON(!loop);
> > +
> > +		/* Seal race with Reset */
> > +		spin_lock_irqsave(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> > +		disabled = submission_disabled(guc);
> > +		if (likely(!disabled)) {
> >   			set_context_wait_for_deregister_to_register(ce);
> >   			intel_context_get(ce);
> > -		} else {
> > -			bool disabled;
> > -			unsigned long flags;
> > -
> > -			/* Seal race with Reset */
> > -			spin_lock_irqsave(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> > -			disabled = submission_disabled(guc);
> > -			if (likely(!disabled)) {
> > -				set_context_wait_for_deregister_to_register(ce);
> > -				intel_context_get(ce);
> > -			}
> > -			spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> > -			if (unlikely(disabled)) {
> > -				reset_lrc_desc(guc, desc_idx);
> > -				return 0;	/* Will get registered later */
> > -			}
> > +		}
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
> > +		if (unlikely(disabled)) {
> > +			reset_lrc_desc(guc, desc_idx);
> > +			return 0;	/* Will get registered later */
> >   		}
> >   		/*
> > @@ -1392,10 +1401,7 @@ static int guc_lrc_desc_pin(struct intel_context *ce, bool loop)
> >   		 */
> >   		with_intel_runtime_pm(runtime_pm, wakeref)
> >   			ret = deregister_context(ce, ce->guc_id, loop);
> > -		if (unlikely(ret == -EBUSY)) {
> > -			clr_context_wait_for_deregister_to_register(ce);
> > -			intel_context_put(ce);
> 
> Why is the EBUSY case not applicable anymore?
> 

Commmit message cover this - this is dead code that can't be reached
in the current code nor can be it be reached in upcoming code. Or put
another way loop is always true thus we can't get -EBUSY from
deregister_context().

Matt 

> Daniele
> 
> > -		} else if (unlikely(ret == -ENODEV)) {
> > +		if (unlikely(ret == -ENODEV)) {
> >   			ret = 0;	/* Will get registered later */
> >   		}
> >   	} else {
> 



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

  Powered by Linux