lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock
From
Date

On 06/10/2017 10:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 4.14-rc1 gained the fancy new cross-release support in lockdep, which
> seems to have uncovered a few more rules about what is allowed and
> isn't.
>
> This one here seems to indicate that allocating a work-queue while
> holding mmap_sem is a no-go, so let's try to preallocate it.
>
> Of course another way to break this chain would be somewhere in the
> cpu hotplug code, since this isn't the only trace we're finding now
> which goes through msr_create_device.
>
> Full lockdep splat:
>
> ======================================================
> WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> 4.14.0-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1 Tainted: G U
> ------------------------------------------------------
> prime_mmap/1551 is trying to acquire lock:
> (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: [<ffffffff8109dbb7>] apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
>
> but task is already holding lock:
> (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa01a7b2a>] i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
>
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>
> -> #6 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
> mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
> i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
> drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
> drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
> do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
> SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
>
> -> #5 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> __might_fault+0x68/0x90
> _copy_to_user+0x23/0x70
> filldir+0xa5/0x120
> dcache_readdir+0xf9/0x170
> iterate_dir+0x69/0x1a0
> SyS_getdents+0xa5/0x140
> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
>
> -> #4 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5){++++}:
> down_write+0x3b/0x70
> handle_create+0xcb/0x1e0
> devtmpfsd+0x139/0x180
> kthread+0x152/0x190
> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
>
> -> #3 ((complete)&req.done){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> wait_for_common+0x58/0x210
> wait_for_completion+0x1d/0x20
> devtmpfs_create_node+0x13d/0x160
> device_add+0x5eb/0x620
> device_create_groups_vargs+0xe0/0xf0
> device_create+0x3a/0x40
> msr_device_create+0x2b/0x40
> cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xa3/0x840
> cpuhp_thread_fun+0x7a/0x150
> smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
> kthread+0x152/0x190
> ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
>
> -> #2 (cpuhp_state){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> cpuhp_issue_call+0x10b/0x170
> __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x134/0x2a0
> __cpuhp_setup_state+0x46/0x60
> page_writeback_init+0x43/0x67
> pagecache_init+0x3d/0x42
> start_kernel+0x3a8/0x3fc
> x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> x86_64_start_kernel+0x6d/0x70
> verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb
>
> -> #1 (cpuhp_state_mutex){+.+.}:
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
> mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
> __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x52/0x2a0
> __cpuhp_setup_state+0x46/0x60
> page_alloc_init+0x28/0x30
> start_kernel+0x145/0x3fc
> x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
> x86_64_start_kernel+0x6d/0x70
> verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb
>
> -> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
> check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
> apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
> __alloc_workqueue_key+0x1d8/0x4d9
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x1fb/0x270 [i915]
> i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
> drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
> drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
> do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
> SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
>
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Chain exists of:
> cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev_priv->mm_lock
>
> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> ---- ----
> lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
> lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
> lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
> lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
>
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> 2 locks held by prime_mmap/1551:
> #0: (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}, at: [<ffffffffa01a7b18>] i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x138/0x270 [i915]
> #1: (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa01a7b2a>] i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
>
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 4 PID: 1551 Comm: prime_mmap Tainted: G U 4.14.0-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1
> Hardware name: Dell Inc. XPS 8300 /0Y2MRG, BIOS A06 10/17/2011
> Call Trace:
> dump_stack+0x68/0x9f
> print_circular_bug+0x235/0x3c0
> ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
> check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
> __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> ? __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
> lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> ? apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
> cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
> ? apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
> apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
> __alloc_workqueue_key+0x1d8/0x4d9
> ? __lockdep_init_map+0x57/0x1c0
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x1fb/0x270 [i915]
> i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
> ? i915_gem_userptr_release+0x140/0x140 [i915]
> drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
> drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
> ? i915_gem_userptr_release+0x140/0x140 [i915]
> ? __do_page_fault+0x2a4/0x570
> do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
> ? entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x5/0xb1
> ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
> ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0xe3/0x1b0
> SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
> entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> RIP: 0033:0x7fbb83c39587
> RSP: 002b:00007fff188dc228 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: ffffffff81492963 RCX: 00007fbb83c39587
> RDX: 00007fff188dc260 RSI: 00000000c0186473 RDI: 0000000000000003
> RBP: ffffc90001487f88 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 00007fff188dc2ac
> R10: 00007fbb83efcb58 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000000000
> R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 00000000c0186473 R15: 00007fff188dc2ac
> ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0x13/0x20
>
> v2: Set ret correctly when we raced with another thread.
>
> v3: Use Chris' diff. Attach the right lockdep splat.
>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@verizon.com>
> Cc: Marta Lofstedt <marta.lofstedt@intel.com>
> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> References: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_3180/shard-hsw3/igt@prime_mmap@test_userptr.html
> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102939
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> index 2d4996de7331..f9b3406401af 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> @@ -164,7 +164,6 @@ static struct i915_mmu_notifier *
> i915_mmu_notifier_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn;
> - int ret;
>
> mn = kmalloc(sizeof(*mn), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (mn == NULL)
> @@ -179,14 +178,6 @@ i915_mmu_notifier_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> }
>
> - /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
> - ret = __mmu_notifier_register(&mn->mn, mm);
> - if (ret) {
> - destroy_workqueue(mn->wq);
> - kfree(mn);
> - return ERR_PTR(ret);
> - }
> -
> return mn;
> }
>
> @@ -210,23 +201,37 @@ i915_gem_userptr_release__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> static struct i915_mmu_notifier *
> i915_mmu_notifier_find(struct i915_mm_struct *mm)
> {
> - struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn = mm->mn;
> + struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn;
> + int err;
>
> mn = mm->mn;
> if (mn)
> return mn;
>
> + mn = i915_mmu_notifier_create(mm->mm);
> + if (IS_ERR(mn))
> + return mn;

Strictly speaking we don't want to fail just yet, only it we actually
needed a new notifier and we failed to create it.

> +
> + err = 0;
> down_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
> mutex_lock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
> - if ((mn = mm->mn) == NULL) {
> - mn = i915_mmu_notifier_create(mm->mm);
> - if (!IS_ERR(mn))
> - mm->mn = mn;
> + if (mm->mn == NULL) {
> + /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
> + err = __mmu_notifier_register(&mn->mn, mm->mm);
> + if (!err) {
> + /* Protected by mm_lock */
> + mm->mn = fetch_and_zero(&mn);
> + }
> }
> mutex_unlock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
> up_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
>
> - return mn;
> + if (mn) {
> + destroy_workqueue(mn->wq);
> + kfree(mn);
> + }
> +
> + return err ? ERR_PTR(err) : mm->mn;
> }
>
> static int
>

Otherwise looks good to me.

I would also put a note in the commit on how working around the locking
issue is also beneficial to performance with moving the allocation step
outside the mmap_sem.

Regards,

Tvrtko

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-06 13:35    [W:0.105 / U:6.044 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site