On 15/02/2025 01:28, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 05:05:28PM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote:
On error restore anything still on the pin_list back to the invalidation
list on error. For the actual pin, so long as the vma is tracked on
either list it should get picked up on the next pin, however it looks
possible for the vma to get nuked but still be present on this per vm
pin_list leading to corruption. An alternative might be then to instead
just remove the link when destroying the vma.
Fixes: ed2bdf3b264d ("drm/xe/vm: Subclass userptr vmas")
Suggested-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v6.8+
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
index d664f2e418b2..668b0bde7822 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
@@ -670,12 +670,12 @@ int xe_vm_userptr_pin(struct xe_vm *vm)
list_for_each_entry_safe(uvma, next, &vm->userptr.invalidated,
userptr.invalidate_link) {
list_del_init(&uvma->userptr.invalidate_link);
- list_move_tail(&uvma->userptr.repin_link,
- &vm->userptr.repin_list);
+ list_add_tail(&uvma->userptr.repin_link,
+ &vm->userptr.repin_list);
Why this change?
Just that with this patch the repin_link should now always be empty at
this point, I think. add should complain if that is not the case.
}
spin_unlock(&vm->userptr.invalidated_lock);
- /* Pin and move to temporary list */
+ /* Pin and move to bind list */
list_for_each_entry_safe(uvma, next, &vm->userptr.repin_list,
userptr.repin_link) {
err = xe_vma_userptr_pin_pages(uvma);
@@ -691,10 +691,10 @@ int xe_vm_userptr_pin(struct xe_vm *vm)
err = xe_vm_invalidate_vma(&uvma->vma);
xe_vm_unlock(vm);
if (err)
- return err;
+ break;
} else {
- if (err < 0)
- return err;
+ if (err)
+ break;
list_del_init(&uvma->userptr.repin_link);
list_move_tail(&uvma->vma.combined_links.rebind,
@@ -702,7 +702,19 @@ int xe_vm_userptr_pin(struct xe_vm *vm)
}
}
- return 0;
+ if (err) {
+ down_write(&vm->userptr.notifier_lock);
Can you explain why you take the notifier lock here? I don't think this
required unless I'm missing something.
For the invalidated list, the docs say:
"Removing items from the list additionally requires @lock in write mode,
and adding items to the list requires the @userptr.notifer_lock in write
mode."
Not sure if the docs needs to be updated here?
Matt
+ spin_lock(&vm->userptr.invalidated_lock);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(uvma, next, &vm->userptr.repin_list,
+ userptr.repin_link) {
+ list_del_init(&uvma->userptr.repin_link);
+ list_move_tail(&uvma->userptr.invalidate_link,
+ &vm->userptr.invalidated);
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&vm->userptr.invalidated_lock);
+ up_write(&vm->userptr.notifier_lock);
+ }
+ return err;
}
/**
--
2.48.1
