On 12.07.2023 14:35, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 12/07/2023 13:18, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
On 11.07.2023 17:27, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 11/07/2023 14:58, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
On 11.07.2023 13:34, Andi Shyti wrote:
Hi Andrzej,
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 11
+++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
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 a0e3ef1c65d246..2c877ea5eda6f0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -3461,6 +3461,8 @@ static void guc_prio_fini(struct
i915_request *rq, struct intel_context *ce)
static void remove_from_context(struct i915_request *rq)
{
struct intel_context *ce =
request_to_scheduling_context(rq);
+ struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
+ intel_engine_mask_t tmp;
GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_child(ce));
@@ -3478,6 +3480,15 @@ static void
remove_from_context(struct i915_request *rq)
atomic_dec(&ce->guc_id.ref);
i915_request_notify_execute_cb_imm(rq);
+
+ /*
+ * GuC virtual engine can disappear after this
call, so let's assign
+ * something valid, as driver expects this to be
always valid pointer.
+ */
+ for_each_engine_masked(engine, rq->engine->gt,
rq->execution_mask, tmp) {
+ rq->engine = engine;
yes... here the context might lose the virtual engine... I
wonder
whether this is the rigth solution, though. Maybe we should set
rq->engine = NULL; and check for NULL? Don't know.
Setting NULL causes occasional null page de-reference in
i915_request_wait_timeout:
mutex_release(&rq->engine->gt->reset.mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_)
rq->engine after removing rq from context is (IMHO) used as a set
of aliases
for gt and i915 (despite rq itself contains the alias to i915).
without investigating further, but maybe that code is not even
supposed to be executed, at this point, if the request's assigned
virtual engine is removed.
Real tests show it is executed and the function
i915_request_wait_timeout is quite generic
I guess it is quite typical use-case, the only question is about
timings - what happens earlier -
finalization of i915_request_wait_timeout or context removal.
The other point rq->engine is accessed after context removal is
i915_fence_release -
there is long comment there regarding virtual context and reuse
retired rq.
Anyway calling there "intel_engine_is_virtual(rq->engine)" is risky
without this patch and KASAN complains clearly about it:
http://gfx-ci.igk.intel.com/tree/drm-tip/kasan.html?testfilter=gem_exec_balancer
Looks like a bug introduced in bcb9aa45d5a0 ("Revert "drm/i915: Hold
reference to intel_context over life of i915_request""), which was a
partial revert of 1e98d8c52ed5 ("drm/i915: Hold reference to
intel_context over life of i915_request").
Ie. if 1e98d8c52ed5 recognised the problem with disappearing
rq->engine, then I am confused how bcb9aa45d5a0 left the rq->engine
dereference in there after removing the extra reference.
Could it be that the intel_engine_is_virtual check simply needs to be
removed from i915_fence_release, restoring things to how they were
before 1e98d8c52ed5? Could you try it out?
I have already tried something similar [1] and KASAN bugs disappeared,
or more precisely gem_exec_balance tests passed. But I have been
warned by Nirmoy guc virtual engines can be created for only one real
engine (ie. is_power_of_2(rq->execution_mask) is true but rq->engine
points to virtual engine).
[1]: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/118879/
Ugh.. Try involving media umd folks to see if they need a single engine
virtual engine? Or we could always just not create it in the driver, I
mean just use the physical one.
In case there is single physical engine intel_engine_create_virtual
falls back to intel_context_create (no virtual engine), but in case of
parallel contexts there is special KMD flag FORCE_VIRTUAL which enforces
virtual engine even for single physical engine. So it seems to be KMD
concept.
Anyway is it worth investigating how to make
"is_power_of_2(rq->execution_mask)" indication of dangling engine
pointer? It will not help in 1st case:
mutex_release(&rq->engine->gt->reset.mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_)
Regards
Andrzej
Regards,
Tvrtko
