From: Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gem: Avoid rcu_barrier() from shrinker paths
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 10:47:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAM0jSHPNr9wf5Ngaskyu=N6qAhh1=_gJ0i9tMe2tTeNgi7EoiQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191208161252.3015727-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 16:13, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>
> As i915_gem_object_unbind() waits on an rcu_barrier() to flush vm
> releases (and destruction of their bound vma), we have to be careful not
> to invoke that barrier from beneath the shrinker:
>
> <4> [430.222671] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> <4> [430.222673] 5.4.0-rc8-CI-CI_DRM_7508+ #1 Tainted: G U
> <4> [430.222675] ------------------------------------------------------
> <4> [430.222677] gem_pwrite/2317 is trying to acquire lock:
> <4> [430.222678] ffffffff82248218 (rcu_state.barrier_mutex){+.+.}, at: rcu_barrier+0x23/0x190
> <4> [430.222685]
> but task is already holding lock:
> <4> [430.222687] ffffffff82263a40 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: fs_reclaim_acquire.part.117+0x0/0x30
> <4> [430.222691]
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> <4> [430.222693]
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> <4> [430.222695]
> -> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}:
> <4> [430.222698] fs_reclaim_acquire.part.117+0x24/0x30
> <4> [430.222702] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x2a/0x2c0
> <4> [430.222705] intel_cpuc_prepare+0x37/0x1a0
> <4> [430.222709] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x9b/0x9d0
> <4> [430.222712] _cpu_up+0xa2/0x140
> <4> [430.222714] do_cpu_up+0x61/0xa0
> <4> [430.222718] smp_init+0x57/0x96
> <4> [430.222722] kernel_init_freeable+0xac/0x1c7
> <4> [430.222725] kernel_init+0x5/0x100
> <4> [430.222728] ret_from_fork+0x24/0x50
> <4> [430.222729]
> -> #1 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
> <4> [430.222733] cpus_read_lock+0x34/0xd0
> <4> [430.222734] rcu_barrier+0xaa/0x190
> <4> [430.222736] kernel_init+0x21/0x100
> <4> [430.222737] ret_from_fork+0x24/0x50
> <4> [430.222739]
> -> #0 (rcu_state.barrier_mutex){+.+.}:
> <4> [430.222742] __lock_acquire+0x1328/0x15d0
> <4> [430.222743] lock_acquire+0xa7/0x1c0
> <4> [430.222746] __mutex_lock+0x9a/0x9d0
> <4> [430.222747] rcu_barrier+0x23/0x190
> <4> [430.222850] i915_gem_object_unbind+0x264/0x3d0 [i915]
> <4> [430.222882] i915_gem_shrink+0x297/0x5f0 [i915]
> <4> [430.222912] i915_gem_shrink_all+0x38/0x60 [i915]
> <4> [430.222934] i915_drop_caches_set+0x1f0/0x240 [i915]
> <4> [430.222938] simple_attr_write+0xb0/0xd0
> <4> [430.222941] full_proxy_write+0x51/0x80
> <4> [430.222943] vfs_write+0xb9/0x1d0
> <4> [430.222944] ksys_write+0x9f/0xe0
> <4> [430.222946] do_syscall_64+0x4f/0x210
> <4> [430.222948] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> <4> [430.222950]
> other info that might help us debug this:
>
> <4> [430.222952] Chain exists of:
> rcu_state.barrier_mutex --> cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> fs_reclaim
>
> <4> [430.222955] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>
> <4> [430.222957] CPU0 CPU1
> <4> [430.222958] ---- ----
> <4> [430.222960] lock(fs_reclaim);
> <4> [430.222961] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> <4> [430.222963] lock(fs_reclaim);
> <4> [430.222964] lock(rcu_state.barrier_mutex);
> <4> [430.222966]
> *** DEADLOCK ***
>
> <4> [430.222968] 3 locks held by gem_pwrite/2317:
> <4> [430.222969] #0: ffff88849e2d9408 (sb_writers#14){.+.+}, at: vfs_write+0x1a4/0x1d0
> <4> [430.222973] #1: ffff888496976db0 (&attr->mutex){+.+.}, at: simple_attr_write+0x36/0xd0
> <4> [430.222976] #2: ffffffff82263a40 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: fs_reclaim_acquire.part.117+0x0/0x30
> <4> [430.222980]
> stack backtrace:
> <4> [430.222982] CPU: 1 PID: 2317 Comm: gem_pwrite Tainted: G U 5.4.0-rc8-CI-CI_DRM_7508+ #1
> <4> [430.222985] Hardware name: Intel Corporation Tiger Lake Client Platform/TigerLake U DDR4 SODIMM RVP, BIOS TGLSFWI1.R00.2321.A08.1909162051 09/16/2019
> <4> [430.222989] Call Trace:
> <4> [430.222992] dump_stack+0x71/0x9b
> <4> [430.222995] check_noncircular+0x19b/0x1c0
> <4> [430.222998] ? __lock_acquire+0x1328/0x15d0
> <4> [430.222999] __lock_acquire+0x1328/0x15d0
> <4> [430.223001] ? mark_held_locks+0x49/0x70
> <4> [430.223003] lock_acquire+0xa7/0x1c0
> <4> [430.223005] ? rcu_barrier+0x23/0x190
> <4> [430.223008] __mutex_lock+0x9a/0x9d0
> <4> [430.223009] ? rcu_barrier+0x23/0x190
> <4> [430.223011] ? rcu_barrier+0x23/0x190
> <4> [430.223013] ? find_held_lock+0x2d/0x90
> <4> [430.223045] ? i915_gem_object_unbind+0x24a/0x3d0 [i915]
> <4> [430.223048] ? rcu_barrier+0x23/0x190
> <4> [430.223049] rcu_barrier+0x23/0x190
> <4> [430.223081] i915_gem_object_unbind+0x264/0x3d0 [i915]
> <4> [430.223119] i915_gem_shrink+0x297/0x5f0 [i915]
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-09 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-08 16:12 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gem: Avoid rcu_barrier() from shrinker paths Chris Wilson
2019-12-08 16:12 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Change i915_vma_unbind() to report -EAGAIN on activity Chris Wilson
2019-12-09 10:58 ` Matthew Auld
2020-02-21 14:54 ` Daniel Vetter
2019-12-08 16:34 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915/gem: Avoid rcu_barrier() from shrinker paths Patchwork
2019-12-08 16:55 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2019-12-08 19:17 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2019-12-09 10:47 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAM0jSHPNr9wf5Ngaskyu=N6qAhh1=_gJ0i9tMe2tTeNgi7EoiQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=matthew.william.auld@gmail.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.