On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:37 PM Thomas Hellström (Intel) <thomas_os@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2020-05-12 10:59, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > Design is similar to the lockdep annotations for workers, but with > > some twists: > > > > - We use a read-lock for the execution/worker/completion side, so that > > this explicit annotation can be more liberally sprinkled around. > > With read locks lockdep isn't going to complain if the read-side > > isn't nested the same way under all circumstances, so ABBA deadlocks > > are ok. Which they are, since this is an annotation only. > > > > - We're using non-recursive lockdep read lock mode, since in recursive > > read lock mode lockdep does not catch read side hazards. And we > > _very_ much want read side hazards to be caught. For full details of > > this limitation see > > > > commit e91498589746065e3ae95d9a00b068e525eec34f > > Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed Aug 23 13:13:11 2017 +0200 > > > > locking/lockdep/selftests: Add mixed read-write ABBA tests > > > > - To allow nesting of the read-side explicit annotations we explicitly > > keep track of the nesting. lock_is_held() allows us to do that. > > > > - The wait-side annotation is a write lock, and entirely done within > > dma_fence_wait() for everyone by default. > > > > - To be able to freely annotate helper functions I want to make it ok > > to call dma_fence_begin/end_signalling from soft/hardirq context. > > First attempt was using the hardirq locking context for the write > > side in lockdep, but this forces all normal spinlocks nested within > > dma_fence_begin/end_signalling to be spinlocks. That bollocks. > > > > The approach now is to simple check in_atomic(), and for these cases > > entirely rely on the might_sleep() check in dma_fence_wait(). That > > will catch any wrong nesting against spinlocks from soft/hardirq > > contexts. > > > > The idea here is that every code path that's critical for eventually > > signalling a dma_fence should be annotated with > > dma_fence_begin/end_signalling. The annotation ideally starts right > > after a dma_fence is published (added to a dma_resv, exposed as a > > sync_file fd, attached to a drm_syncobj fd, or anything else that > > makes the dma_fence visible to other kernel threads), up to and > > including the dma_fence_wait(). Examples are irq handlers, the > > scheduler rt threads, the tail of execbuf (after the corresponding > > fences are visible), any workers that end up signalling dma_fences and > > really anything else. Not annotated should be code paths that only > > complete fences opportunistically as the gpu progresses, like e.g. > > shrinker/eviction code. > > > > The main class of deadlocks this is supposed to catch are: > > > > Thread A: > > > > mutex_lock(A); > > mutex_unlock(A); > > > > dma_fence_signal(); > > > > Thread B: > > > > mutex_lock(A); > > dma_fence_wait(); > > mutex_unlock(A); > > > > Thread B is blocked on A signalling the fence, but A never gets around > > to that because it cannot acquire the lock A. > > > > Note that dma_fence_wait() is allowed to be nested within > > dma_fence_begin/end_signalling sections. To allow this to happen the > > read lock needs to be upgraded to a write lock, which means that any > > other lock is acquired between the dma_fence_begin_signalling() call and > > the call to dma_fence_wait(), and still held, this will result in an > > immediate lockdep complaint. The only other option would be to not > > annotate such calls, defeating the point. Therefore these annotations > > cannot be sprinkled over the code entirely mindless to avoid false > > positives. > > > > v2: handle soft/hardirq ctx better against write side and dont forget > > EXPORT_SYMBOL, drivers can't use this otherwise. > > > > Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: linaro-mm-sig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx> > > LGTM. Perhaps some in-code documentation on how to use the new functions > are called. See cover letter, that's going to be done for next round. For this one here I just wanted to showcase a bit how it's used in a few different places, mostly selected to get as much feedback from across different drivers. Hence e.g. annotating drm/scheduler. > Otherwise for patch 2 and 3, > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellstrom <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxx> I think I'll just cc you for the next round with docs, so you can make sure it looks ok :-) -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
