[PATCH] drm/i915: Don't call synchronize_rcu_expedited under struct_mutex

* [PATCH] drm/i915: Don't call synchronize_rcu_expedited under struct_mutex
@ 2017-04-07  9:00 Joonas Lahtinen
  2017-04-07  9:18 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joonas Lahtinen @ 2017-04-07  9:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Intel graphics driver community testing & development
  Cc: Andrea Arcangeli, Daniel Vetter, Jani Nikula

Only call synchronize_rcu_expedited after unlocking struct_mutex to
avoid deadlock because the workqueues depend on struct_mutex.

From original patch by Andrea:

synchronize_rcu/synchronize_sched/synchronize_rcu_expedited() will
hang until its own workqueues are run. The i915 gem workqueues will
wait on the struct_mutex to be released. So we cannot wait for a
quiescent state using those rcu primitives while holding the
struct_mutex or it creates a circular lock dependency resulting in
kernel hangs (which is reproducible but goes undetected by lockdep).

kswapd0         D    0   700      2 0x00000000
Call Trace:
? __schedule+0x1a5/0x660
? schedule+0x36/0x80
? _synchronize_rcu_expedited.constprop.65+0x2ef/0x300
? wake_up_bit+0x20/0x20
? rcu_stall_kick_kthreads.part.54+0xc0/0xc0
? rcu_exp_wait_wake+0x530/0x530
? i915_gem_shrink+0x34b/0x4b0
? i915_gem_shrinker_scan+0x7c/0x90
? i915_gem_shrinker_scan+0x7c/0x90
? shrink_slab.part.61.constprop.72+0x1c1/0x3a0
? shrink_zone+0x154/0x160
? kswapd+0x40a/0x720
? kthread+0xf4/0x130
? try_to_free_pages+0x450/0x450
? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
? ret_from_fork+0x23/0x30
plasmashell     D    0  4657   4614 0x00000000
Call Trace:
? __schedule+0x1a5/0x660
? schedule+0x36/0x80
? schedule_preempt_disabled+0xe/0x10
? __mutex_lock.isra.4+0x1c9/0x790
? i915_gem_close_object+0x26/0xc0
? i915_gem_close_object+0x26/0xc0
? drm_gem_object_release_handle+0x48/0x90
? drm_gem_handle_delete+0x50/0x80
? drm_ioctl+0x1fa/0x420
? drm_gem_handle_create+0x40/0x40
? pipe_write+0x391/0x410
? __vfs_write+0xc6/0x120
? do_vfs_ioctl+0x8b/0x5d0
? SyS_ioctl+0x3b/0x70
? entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x13/0x94
kworker/0:0     D    0 29186      2 0x00000000
Workqueue: events __i915_gem_free_work
Call Trace:
? __schedule+0x1a5/0x660
? schedule+0x36/0x80
? schedule_preempt_disabled+0xe/0x10
? __mutex_lock.isra.4+0x1c9/0x790
? del_timer_sync+0x44/0x50
? update_curr+0x57/0x110
? __i915_gem_free_objects+0x31/0x300
? __i915_gem_free_objects+0x31/0x300
? __i915_gem_free_work+0x2d/0x40
? process_one_work+0x13a/0x3b0
? worker_thread+0x4a/0x460
? kthread+0xf4/0x130
? process_one_work+0x3b0/0x3b0
? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
? ret_from_fork+0x23/0x30

Fixes: 3d3d18f086cd ("drm/i915: Avoid rcu_barrier() from reclaim paths (shrinker)")
Reported-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
index 2978acd..129ed30 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
@@ -53,6 +53,17 @@ static bool i915_gem_shrinker_lock(struct drm_device *dev, bool *unlock)
 	BUG();
 }
 
+static void i915_gem_shrinker_unlock(struct drm_device *dev, bool unlock)
+{
+	if (!unlock)
+		return;
+
+	mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
+
+	/* expedite the RCU grace period to free some request slabs */
+	synchronize_rcu_expedited();
+}
+
 static bool any_vma_pinned(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
 {
 	struct i915_vma *vma;
@@ -232,11 +243,8 @@ i915_gem_shrink(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
 		intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
 
 	i915_gem_retire_requests(dev_priv);
-	if (unlock)
-		mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
 
-	/* expedite the RCU grace period to free some request slabs */
-	synchronize_rcu_expedited();
+	i915_gem_shrinker_unlock(&dev_priv->drm, unlock);
 
 	return count;
 }
@@ -296,8 +304,7 @@ i915_gem_shrinker_count(struct shrinker *shrinker, struct shrink_control *sc)
 			count += obj->base.size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
 	}
 
-	if (unlock)
-		mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
+	i915_gem_shrinker_unlock(dev, unlock);
 
 	return count;
 }
@@ -324,8 +331,8 @@ i915_gem_shrinker_scan(struct shrinker *shrinker, struct shrink_control *sc)
 					 sc->nr_to_scan - freed,
 					 I915_SHRINK_BOUND |
 					 I915_SHRINK_UNBOUND);
-	if (unlock)
-		mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
+
+	i915_gem_shrinker_unlock(dev, unlock);
 
 	return freed;
 }
@@ -367,8 +374,7 @@ i915_gem_shrinker_unlock_uninterruptible(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
 					 struct shrinker_lock_uninterruptible *slu)
 {
 	dev_priv->mm.interruptible = slu->was_interruptible;
-	if (slu->unlock)
-		mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
+	i915_gem_shrinker_unlock(&dev_priv->drm, slu->unlock);
 }
 
 static int
-- 
2.7.4

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread