> 2020年2月28日 13:45，panxinhui <xpan@xxxxxxx> 写道：
>
>
>
>> 2020年2月26日 03:11，Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig@xxxxxxx> 写道：
>>
>> Am 25.02.20 um 18:23 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 01:04:15PM +0100, Christian König wrote:
>>>> Am 23.02.20 um 12:56 schrieb Pan, Xinhui:
>>>>> If shared fence list is not empty, even we want to test all fences, excl fence is ignored.
>>>>> That is abviously wrong, so fix it.
>>>> Yeah that is a known issue and I completely agree with you, but other
>>>> disagree.
>>>>
>>>> See the shared fences are meant to depend on the exclusive fence. So all
>>>> shared fences must finish only after the exclusive one has finished as well.
>>>>
>>>> The problem now is that for error handling this isn't necessary true. In
>>>> other words when a shared fence completes with an error it is perfectly
>>>> possible that he does this before the exclusive fence is finished.
>>>>
>>>> I'm trying to convince Daniel that this is a problem for years :)
>>> I thought the consensus is that reasonable gpu schedulers and gpu reset
>>> code should try to make really, really sure it only completes stuff in
>>> sequence? That's at least my take away from the syncobj timeline
>>> discussion, where you convinced me we shouldn't just crash&burn.
>>>
>>> I think as long as your scheduler is competent and your gpu reset tries to
>>> limit damage (i.e. kill offending ctx terminally, mark everything else
>>> that didn't complete for re-running) we should end up with everything
>>> completing in sequence. I guess if you do kill a lot more stuff, then
>>> you'd have to push these through your scheduler as dummy jobs, i.e. they
>>> still wait for their dependencies, but then all they do is set the
>>> dma_fence error and complete it. Maybe something the common scheduler
>>> could do.
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly how we currently implement it. But I still think that this is not necessary the best approach :)
>>
>> Anyway Xinhui's problem turned out to be deeper. We somehow add an old stale fence to the dma_resv object sometimes and that can result in quite a bunch of problems.
>>
>> I'm currently trying to hunt down what's going wrong here in more detail.
>
> got some backtrace below.
>
> add excl fence:
>
> <4>[ 1203.904748] ttm_bo_pipeline_move+0x74/0x368 [ttm]
> <4>[ 1203.904809] amdgpu_move_blit.isra.8+0xf4/0x108 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.904870] amdgpu_bo_move+0x88/0x208 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.904881] ttm_bo_handle_move_mem+0x250/0x498 [ttm]
> <4>[ 1203.904888] ttm_bo_evict+0x12c/0x1c8 [ttm]
> <4>[ 1203.904895] ttm_mem_evict_first+0x1d0/0x2c8 [ttm]
> <4>[ 1203.904903] ttm_bo_mem_space+0x2f4/0x498 [ttm]
> <4>[ 1203.904913] ttm_bo_validate+0xdc/0x168 [ttm]
> <4>[ 1203.904975] amdgpu_cs_bo_validate+0xb0/0x230 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.905038] amdgpu_cs_validate+0x60/0x2b8 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.905099] amdgpu_cs_list_validate+0xb8/0x1a8 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.905161] amdgpu_cs_ioctl+0x12b0/0x1598 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.905186] drm_ioctl_kernel+0x94/0x118 [drm]
> <4>[ 1203.905210] drm_ioctl+0x1f0/0x438 [drm]
> <4>[ 1203.905271] amdgpu_drm_ioctl+0x58/0x90 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.905275] do_vfs_ioctl+0xc4/0x8c0
> <4>[ 1203.905279] ksys_ioctl+0x8c/0xa0
>
> add shared fence:
>
> <4>[ 1203.905349] amdgpu_bo_fence+0x6c/0x80 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.905410] amdgpu_gem_object_close+0x194/0x1d0 [amdgpu]
> <4>[ 1203.905435] drm_gem_object_release_handle+0x3c/0x98 [drm]
> <4>[ 1203.905438] idr_for_each+0x70/0x128
> <4>[ 1203.905463] drm_gem_release+0x30/0x48 [drm]
> <4>[ 1203.905486] drm_file_free.part.0+0x258/0x2f0 [drm]
> <4>[ 1203.905511] drm_release+0x9c/0xe0 [drm]
> <4>[ 1203.905514] __fput+0xac/0x218
> <4>[ 1203.905518] ____fput+0x20/0x30
> <4>[ 1203.905521] task_work_run+0xb8/0xf0
> <4>[ 1203.905523] do_exit+0x398/0xaf8
> <4>[ 1203.905525] do_group_exit+0x3c/0xd0
> <4>[ 1203.905527] get_signal+0xec/0x740
> <4>[ 1203.905529] do_signal+0x88/0x288
> <4>[ 1203.905531] do_notify_resume+0xd8/0x130
> <4>[ 1203.905533] work_pending+0x8/0x10
>
> we are using kernel 4.19.104.
>
> The problem is that, eviction on PT/PD submit one job and add excl fence to bo->resv.
>
> And if application is got killed, amdgpu_gem_object_close will try to clear PT/PD, and submit one job.
> I take a look at the code, it will sync root.base.bo->resv. and add the fence to bo as shared.
>
> So the fence used in clear PT/PD does not sync bo->resv actually.
wait, gem_object_open will check bo->resv == root.base.bo->resv. So there is race like below?
amdgpu_vm_bo_update_mapping ttm_bo_pipeline_move
sycn_resv
submit job
add excl fence
submit job
add shared fence
In the latest code, I notice amdgpu_vm_bo_update_mapping will hole the eviction lock. so no race there.
thanks
xinhui
>
> amdgpu_vm_bo_update_mapping take excl fence as a parameter for sync.
> But amdgpu_vm_clear_freed did not.
>
>
> thanks
> xinhui
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>>> -Daniel
>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: xinhui pan <xinhui.pan@xxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c | 9 +++++----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
>>>>> index 4264e64788c4..44dc64c547c6 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c
>>>>> @@ -632,14 +632,14 @@ static inline int dma_resv_test_signaled_single(struct dma_fence *passed_fence)
>>>>> */
>>>>> bool dma_resv_test_signaled_rcu(struct dma_resv *obj, bool test_all)
>>>>> {
>>>>> - unsigned seq, shared_count;
>>>>> + unsigned int seq, shared_count, left;
>>>>> int ret;
>>>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> retry:
>>>>> ret = true;
>>>>> shared_count = 0;
>>>>> - seq = read_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq);
>>>>> + left = seq = read_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq);
>>>>> if (test_all) {
>>>>> unsigned i;
>>>>> @@ -647,7 +647,7 @@ bool dma_resv_test_signaled_rcu(struct dma_resv *obj, bool test_all)
>>>>> struct dma_resv_list *fobj = rcu_dereference(obj->fence);
>>>>> if (fobj)
>>>>> - shared_count = fobj->shared_count;
>>>>> + left = shared_count = fobj->shared_count;
>>>>> for (i = 0; i < shared_count; ++i) {
>>>>> struct dma_fence *fence = rcu_dereference(fobj->shared[i]);
>>>>> @@ -657,13 +657,14 @@ bool dma_resv_test_signaled_rcu(struct dma_resv *obj, bool test_all)
>>>>> goto retry;
>>>>> else if (!ret)
>>>>> break;
>>>>> + left--;
>>>>> }
>>>>> if (read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, seq))
>>>>> goto retry;
>>>>> }
>>>>> - if (!shared_count) {
>>>>> + if (!left) {
>>>>> struct dma_fence *fence_excl = rcu_dereference(obj->fence_excl);
>>>>> if (fence_excl) {
>>
>
