lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 02/17] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:04:22AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-05-12 09:59:29)
> > 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@infradead.org>
> > 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@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> > Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/dma-fence.h | 12 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> > index 6802125349fb..d5c0fd2efc70 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> > @@ -110,6 +110,52 @@ u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num)
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_context_alloc);
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > +struct lockdep_map dma_fence_lockdep_map = {
> > + .name = "dma_fence_map"
> > +};
>
> Not another false global sharing lockmap.

It's a global contract, it needs a global lockdep map. And yes a big
reason for the motivation here is that i915-gem has a tremendous urge to
just redefine all these global locks to fit to some local interpretation
of what's going on.

That doesn't make the resulting real&existing deadlocks go away.
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-12 11:09    [W:0.180 / U:7.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site