Re: [PATCH 19/25] drm/amdgpu: s/GFP_KERNEL/GFP_ATOMIC in scheduler code

[Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 01:40:11PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.07.20 um 12:49 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:12:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > My dma-fence lockdep annotations caught an inversion because we
> > > allocate memory where we really shouldn't:
> > > 
> > > 	kmem_cache_alloc+0x2b/0x6d0
> > > 	amdgpu_fence_emit+0x30/0x330 [amdgpu]
> > > 	amdgpu_ib_schedule+0x306/0x550 [amdgpu]
> > > 	amdgpu_job_run+0x10f/0x260 [amdgpu]
> > > 	drm_sched_main+0x1b9/0x490 [gpu_sched]
> > > 	kthread+0x12e/0x150
> > > 
> > > Trouble right now is that lockdep only validates against GFP_FS, which
> > > would be good enough for shrinkers. But for mmu_notifiers we actually
> > > need !GFP_ATOMIC, since they can be called from any page laundering,
> > > even if GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO are set.
> > > 
> > > I guess we should improve the lockdep annotations for
> > > fs_reclaim_acquire/release.
> > > 
> > > Ofc real fix is to properly preallocate this fence and stuff it into
> > > the amdgpu job structure. But GFP_ATOMIC gets the lockdep splat out of
> > > the way.
> > > 
> > > v2: Two more allocations in scheduler paths.
> > > 
> > > Frist one:
> > > 
> > > 	__kmalloc+0x58/0x720
> > > 	amdgpu_vmid_grab+0x100/0xca0 [amdgpu]
> > > 	amdgpu_job_dependency+0xf9/0x120 [amdgpu]
> > > 	drm_sched_entity_pop_job+0x3f/0x440 [gpu_sched]
> > > 	drm_sched_main+0xf9/0x490 [gpu_sched]
> > > 
> > > Second one:
> > > 
> > > 	kmem_cache_alloc+0x2b/0x6d0
> > > 	amdgpu_sync_fence+0x7e/0x110 [amdgpu]
> > > 	amdgpu_vmid_grab+0x86b/0xca0 [amdgpu]
> > > 	amdgpu_job_dependency+0xf9/0x120 [amdgpu]
> > > 	drm_sched_entity_pop_job+0x3f/0x440 [gpu_sched]
> > > 	drm_sched_main+0xf9/0x490 [gpu_sched]
> > > 
> > > 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>
> > Has anyone from amd side started looking into how to fix this properly?
> 
> Yeah I checked both and neither are any real problem.

I'm confused ... do you mean "no real problem fixing them" or "not
actually a real problem"?

> > I looked a bit into fixing this with mempool, and the big guarantee we
> > need is that
> > - there's a hard upper limit on how many allocations we minimally need to
> >    guarantee forward progress. And the entire vmid allocation and
> >    amdgpu_sync_fence stuff kinda makes me question that's a valid
> >    assumption.
> 
> We do have hard upper limits for those.
> 
> The VMID allocation could as well just return the fence instead of putting
> it into the sync object IIRC. So that just needs some cleanup and can avoid
> the allocation entirely.

Yeah embedding should be simplest solution of all.

> The hardware fence is limited by the number of submissions we can have
> concurrently on the ring buffers, so also not a problem at all.

Ok that sounds good. Wrt releasing the memory again, is that also done
without any of the allocation-side locks held? I've seen some vmid manager
somewhere ...
-Daniel

> 
> Regards,
> Christian.
> 
> > 
> > - mempool_free must be called without any locks in the way which are held
> >    while we call mempool_alloc. Otherwise we again have a nice deadlock
> >    with no forward progress. I tried auditing that, but got lost in amdgpu
> >    and scheduler code. Some lockdep annotations for mempool.c might help,
> >    but they're not going to catch everything. Plus it would be again manual
> >    annotations because this is yet another cross-release issue. So not sure
> >    that helps at all.
> > 
> > iow, not sure what to do here. Ideas?
> > 
> > Cheers, Daniel
> > 
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c | 2 +-
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c   | 2 +-
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c  | 2 +-
> > >   3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c
> > > index 8d84975885cd..a089a827fdfe 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c
> > > @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ int amdgpu_fence_emit(struct amdgpu_ring *ring, struct dma_fence **f,
> > >   	uint32_t seq;
> > >   	int r;
> > > -	fence = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_fence_slab, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	fence = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_fence_slab, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > >   	if (fence == NULL)
> > >   		return -ENOMEM;
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
> > > index 267fa45ddb66..a333ca2d4ddd 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
> > > @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ static int amdgpu_vmid_grab_idle(struct amdgpu_vm *vm,
> > >   	if (ring->vmid_wait && !dma_fence_is_signaled(ring->vmid_wait))
> > >   		return amdgpu_sync_fence(sync, ring->vmid_wait);
> > > -	fences = kmalloc_array(sizeof(void *), id_mgr->num_ids, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	fences = kmalloc_array(sizeof(void *), id_mgr->num_ids, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > >   	if (!fences)
> > >   		return -ENOMEM;
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c
> > > index 8ea6c49529e7..af22b526cec9 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_sync.c
> > > @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ int amdgpu_sync_fence(struct amdgpu_sync *sync, struct dma_fence *f)
> > >   	if (amdgpu_sync_add_later(sync, f))
> > >   		return 0;
> > > -	e = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_sync_slab, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	e = kmem_cache_alloc(amdgpu_sync_slab, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > >   	if (!e)
> > >   		return -ENOMEM;
> > > -- 
> > > 2.27.0
> > > 
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel