[RFC] dma-buf/fence-array: signal from wq

* [RFC] dma-buf/fence-array: signal from wq
@ 2016-10-16 16:39 Rob Clark
  2016-10-16 17:49 ` Chris Wilson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Rob Clark @ 2016-10-16 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dri-devel; +Cc: Gustavo Padovan

This is the alternative approach for solving a deadlock situation with
array-fences.

Currently with fence-array, we have a potential deadlock situation.  If we
fence_add_callback() on an array-fence, the array-fence's lock is aquired
first, and in it's ->enable_signaling() callback, it will install cb's on
it's array-member fences, so the array-member's lock is acquired second.

But in the signal path, the array-member's lock is acquired first, and the
array-fence's lock acquired second.

To solve that, punt signaling the array-fence to a worker.

lockdep splat:

 ======================================================
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
4.7.0-rc7+ #489 Not tainted
-------------------------------------------------------
surfaceflinger/2034 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&(&array->lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffff00000858cddc>] fence_signal+0x5c/0xf8

but task is already holding lock:
 (&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffff0000085902f8>] sw_sync_ioctl+0x228/0x3b0

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #1 (&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock){......}:
       [<ffff000008108924>] __lock_acquire+0x173c/0x18d8
       [<ffff000008108e0c>] lock_acquire+0x4c/0x68
       [<ffff000008ac6a6c>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x54/0x70
       [<ffff00000858d05c>] fence_add_callback+0x3c/0x100
       [<ffff00000858f100>] fence_array_enable_signaling+0x80/0x170
       [<ffff00000858d0d8>] fence_add_callback+0xb8/0x100
       [<ffff00000858f504>] sync_file_poll+0xd4/0xf0
       [<ffff0000081fd3a0>] do_sys_poll+0x220/0x438
       [<ffff0000081fd8d0>] SyS_ppoll+0x1b0/0x1d8
       [<ffff000008084f30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28

-> #0 (&(&array->lock)->rlock){......}:
       [<ffff000008104768>] print_circular_bug+0x80/0x2e0
       [<ffff0000081089ac>] __lock_acquire+0x17c4/0x18d8
       [<ffff000008108e0c>] lock_acquire+0x4c/0x68
       [<ffff000008ac6a6c>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x54/0x70
       [<ffff00000858cddc>] fence_signal+0x5c/0xf8
       [<ffff00000858f268>] fence_array_cb_func+0x78/0x88
       [<ffff00000858cb28>] fence_signal_locked+0x80/0xe0
       [<ffff0000085903c8>] sw_sync_ioctl+0x2f8/0x3b0
       [<ffff0000081faf6c>] do_vfs_ioctl+0xa4/0x790
       [<ffff0000081fb6e4>] SyS_ioctl+0x8c/0xa0
       [<ffff000008084f30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28

other info that might help us debug this:

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock);
                               lock(&(&array->lock)->rlock);
                               lock(&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock);
  lock(&(&array->lock)->rlock);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

1 lock held by surfaceflinger/2034:
 #0:  (&(&obj->child_list_lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffff0000085902f8>] sw_sync_ioctl+0x228/0x3b0
---
 drivers/dma-buf/fence-array.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/fence-array.c b/drivers/dma-buf/fence-array.c
index f1989fc..446dfc2 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/fence-array.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/fence-array.c
@@ -19,8 +19,11 @@
 
 #include <linux/export.h>
 #include <linux/slab.h>
+#include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/fence-array.h>
 
+static struct workqueue_struct *fence_array_wq;
+
 static void fence_array_cb_func(struct fence *f, struct fence_cb *cb);
 
 static const char *fence_array_get_driver_name(struct fence *fence)
@@ -33,6 +36,13 @@ static const char *fence_array_get_timeline_name(struct fence *fence)
 	return "unbound";
 }
 
+static void signal_worker(struct work_struct *w)
+{
+	struct fence_array *array =
+		container_of(w, struct fence_array, signal_worker);
+	fence_signal(&array->base);
+}
+
 static void fence_array_cb_func(struct fence *f, struct fence_cb *cb)
 {
 	struct fence_array_cb *array_cb =
@@ -40,7 +50,7 @@ static void fence_array_cb_func(struct fence *f, struct fence_cb *cb)
 	struct fence_array *array = array_cb->array;
 
 	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&array->num_pending))
-		fence_signal(&array->base);
+		queue_work(fence_array_wq, &array->signal_worker);
 	fence_put(&array->base);
 }
 
@@ -140,6 +150,25 @@ struct fence_array *fence_array_create(int num_fences, struct fence **fences,
 	atomic_set(&array->num_pending, signal_on_any ? 1 : num_fences);
 	array->fences = fences;
 
+	INIT_WORK(&array->signal_worker, signal_worker);
+
 	return array;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(fence_array_create);
+
+static int __init fence_array_init(void)
+{
+	fence_array_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("fence-array", 0);
+	if (!fence_array_wq)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void __exit fence_array_exit(void)
+{
+	flush_workqueue(fence_array_wq);
+	destroy_workqueue(fence_array_wq);
+}
+
+module_init(fence_array_init);
+module_exit(fence_array_exit);
-- 
2.7.4

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread