From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F395AC433E3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D7F207C3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ffwll.ch header.i=@ffwll.ch header.b="cn1YItAB" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728326AbgFJPRP (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:17:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42876 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728206AbgFJPRO (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:17:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-x343.google.com (mail-ot1-x343.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::343]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C0DDC03E96F for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ot1-x343.google.com with SMTP id b18so1995774oti.1 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:17:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ffwll.ch; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zI7uofz51pygqlbIPcH8UI7dxn9Upxio1MaN4oJ/C9g=; b=cn1YItABIjpgH1df/33A9rOZ2WW7s+F8XUrvfqhtdTqOnbEy00mCHazhPQxoSJkngd gbSflUFsfRgP5Xuf4ZccFS6JQGYPut/J5yww0QUIeI2j2wSyKBT+ET8MPGrf4zsM0hGl EynCUstzCDoRVbOd5XHYkwNdw0DC2yOrUPc/I= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zI7uofz51pygqlbIPcH8UI7dxn9Upxio1MaN4oJ/C9g=; b=Qwy4ECDMxUzTAGFvsyDzZOZgxd1UEGwSDzCfhsilAeOq9qqGZMEDgxKG9qndvDZlow o/BFppjDTJbQnRQn+NnBXoINJDdcKa3cCjetyareTgqjMSSI7hHLT7wiAZjY2mCxfCuh Ll8i0LCOj6gbeQhyS0YazlsN87Bu/ZRXwthcVnwk8SS0HhT+gjYOg220P4xvkFGCj+H8 /7cnB7ut9ATFBWwnxwYsFwE7QAaGIIZcgwwwINJf0Bk4pNDYshTmA9xuYTkgobHmCRFW ycTcdmSu7wetQOxIOUIVE09SHttGWEP6vABxVwcdO02/y0ej5CqKsuV44NEJgmpyfjWh TwrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XTylUxDiRv6S9V/XE83UKJRs1U58Imb64JFUosJJa6JGbqSr8 veIvRzcn6RfozmBm1XqUJcAw0074mNtYpqIn8WDr0g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwxf4B98yRoeLBe83yXJyylkMCiZe4LMe5koUluOB8VmRuk8N7EeQX41ADxRiclH3RAA1O5wxG5oe9eVTZ7TM0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:150d:: with SMTP id k13mr2900687otp.303.1591802233526; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 08:17:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200604081224.863494-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <20200604081224.863494-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> In-Reply-To: From: Daniel Vetter Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:17:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/18] dma-fence: basic lockdep annotations To: Tvrtko Ursulin Cc: DRI Development , linux-rdma , Intel Graphics Development , LKML , amd-gfx list , Chris Wilson , "moderated list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" , Thomas Hellstrom , Daniel Vetter , "open list:DMA BUFFER SHARING FRAMEWORK" , =?UTF-8?Q?Christian_K=C3=B6nig?= , Mika Kuoppala Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-rdma-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 4:22 PM Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > On 04/06/2020 09:12, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > 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 > > 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 an= d > > 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. > > > > v3: Kerneldoc. > > > > v4: Some spelling fixes from Mika > > > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala > > Cc: Thomas Hellstrom > > 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 > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst > > Cc: Christian K=C3=B6nig > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter > > --- > > Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst | 12 +- > > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 161 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++= + > > include/linux/dma-fence.h | 12 ++ > > 3 files changed, 182 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst b/Documentation/drive= r-api/dma-buf.rst > > index 63dec76d1d8d..05d856131140 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst > > @@ -100,11 +100,11 @@ CPU Access to DMA Buffer Objects > > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > > :doc: cpu access > > > > -Fence Poll Support > > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > +Implicit Fence Poll Support > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/dma-buf/dma-buf.c > > - :doc: fence polling > > + :doc: implicit fence polling > > > > Kernel Functions and Structures Reference > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > @@ -133,6 +133,12 @@ DMA Fences > > .. kernel-doc:: drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > :doc: DMA fences overview > > > > +DMA Fence Signalling Annotations > > +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > + > > +.. kernel-doc:: drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > + :doc: fence signalling annotation > > + > > DMA Fences Functions Reference > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > index 656e9ac2d028..0005bc002529 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c > > @@ -110,6 +110,160 @@ u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num) > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_context_alloc); > > > > +/** > > + * DOC: fence signalling annotation > > + * > > + * Proving correctness of all the kernel code around &dma_fence throug= h code > > + * review and testing is tricky for a few reasons: > > + * > > + * * It is a cross-driver contract, and therefore all drivers must fol= low the > > + * same rules for lock nesting order, calling contexts for various f= unctions > > + * and anything else significant for in-kernel interfaces. But it is= also > > + * impossible to test all drivers in a single machine, hence brute-f= orce N vs. > > + * N testing of all combinations is impossible. Even just limiting t= o the > > + * possible combinations is infeasible. > > + * > > + * * There is an enormous amount of driver code involved. For render d= rivers > > + * there's the tail of command submission, after fences are publishe= d, > > + * scheduler code, interrupt and workers to process job completion, > > + * and timeout, gpu reset and gpu hang recovery code. Plus for integ= ration > > + * with core mm with have &mmu_notifier, respectively &mmu_interval_= notifier, > > + * and &shrinker. For modesetting drivers there's the commit tail fu= nctions > > + * between when fences for an atomic modeset are published, and when= the > > + * corresponding vblank completes, including any interrupt processin= g and > > + * related workers. Auditing all that code, across all drivers, is n= ot > > + * feasible. > > + * > > + * * Due to how many other subsystems are involved and the locking hie= rarchies > > + * this pulls in there is extremely thin wiggle-room for driver-spec= ific > > + * differences. &dma_fence interacts with almost all of the core mem= ory > > + * handling through page fault handlers via &dma_resv, dma_resv_lock= () and > > + * dma_resv_unlock(). On the other side it also interacts through al= l > > + * allocation sites through &mmu_notifier and &shrinker. > > + * > > + * Furthermore lockdep does not handle cross-release dependencies, whi= ch means > > + * any deadlocks between dma_fence_wait() and dma_fence_signal() can't= be caught > > + * at runtime with some quick testing. The simplest example is one thr= ead > > + * waiting on a &dma_fence while holding a lock:: > > + * > > + * lock(A); > > + * dma_fence_wait(B); > > + * unlock(A); > > + * > > + * while the other thread is stuck trying to acquire the same lock, wh= ich > > + * prevents it from signalling the fence the previous thread is stuck = waiting > > + * on:: > > + * > > + * lock(A); > > + * unlock(A); > > + * dma_fence_signal(B); > > + * > > + * By manually annotating all code relevant to signalling a &dma_fence= we can > > + * teach lockdep about these dependencies, which also helps with the v= alidation > > + * headache since now lockdep can check all the rules for us:: > > + * > > + * cookie =3D dma_fence_begin_signalling(); > > + * lock(A); > > + * unlock(A); > > + * dma_fence_signal(B); > > + * dma_fence_end_signalling(cookie); > > + * > > + * For using dma_fence_begin_signalling() and dma_fence_end_signalling= () to > > + * annotate critical sections the following rules need to be observed: > > + * > > + * * All code necessary to complete a &dma_fence must be annotated, fr= om the > > + * point where a fence is accessible to other threads, to the point = where > > + * dma_fence_signal() is called. Un-annotated code can contain deadl= ock issues, > > + * and due to the very strict rules and many corner cases it is infe= asible to > > + * catch these just with review or normal stress testing. > > + * > > + * * &struct dma_resv deserves a special note, since the readers are o= nly > > + * protected by rcu. This means the signalling critical section star= ts as soon > > + * as the new fences are installed, even before dma_resv_unlock() is= called. > > + * > > + * * The only exception are fast paths and opportunistic signalling co= de, which > > + * calls dma_fence_signal() purely as an optimization, but is not re= quired to > > + * guarantee completion of a &dma_fence. The usual example is a wait= IOCTL > > + * which calls dma_fence_signal(), while the mandatory completion pa= th goes > > + * through a hardware interrupt and possible job completion worker. > > + * > > + * * To aid composability of code, the annotations can be freely neste= d, as long > > + * as the overall locking hierarchy is consistent. The annotations a= lso work > > + * both in interrupt and process context. Due to implementation deta= ils this > > + * requires that callers pass an opaque cookie from > > + * dma_fence_begin_signalling() to dma_fence_end_signalling(). > > + * > > + * * Validation against the cross driver contract is implemented by pr= iming > > + * lockdep with the relevant hierarchy at boot-up. This means even j= ust > > + * testing with a single device is enough to validate a driver, at l= east as > > + * far as deadlocks with dma_fence_wait() against dma_fence_signal()= are > > + * concerned. > > + */ > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP > > +struct lockdep_map dma_fence_lockdep_map =3D { > > + .name =3D "dma_fence_map" > > +}; > > Maybe a stupid question because this is definitely complicated, but.. If > you have a single/static/global lockdep map, doesn't this mean _all_ > locks, from _all_ drivers happening to use dma-fences will get recorded > in it. Will this work and not cause false positives? > > Sounds like it could create a common link between two completely > unconnected usages. Because below you do add annotations to generic > dma_fence_signal and dma_fence_wait. This is fully intentional. dma-fence is a cross-driver interface, if every driver invents its own rules about how this should work we have an unmaintainable and unreviewable mess. I've typed up the full length rant already here: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/CAKMK7uGnFhbpuurRsnZ4dvRV9gQ_3-rmSJaoqSFY= =3D+Kvepz_CA@mail.gmail.com/ > > + > > +/** > > + * dma_fence_begin_signalling - begin a critical DMA fence signalling = section > > + * > > + * Drivers should use this to annotate the beginning of any code secti= on > > + * required to eventually complete &dma_fence by calling dma_fence_sig= nal(). > > + * > > + * The end of these critical sections are annotated with > > + * dma_fence_end_signalling(). > > + * > > + * Returns: > > + * > > + * Opaque cookie needed by the implementation, which needs to be passe= d to > > + * dma_fence_end_signalling(). > > + */ > > +bool dma_fence_begin_signalling(void) > > +{ > > + /* explicitly nesting ... */ > > + if (lock_is_held_type(&dma_fence_lockdep_map, 1)) > > + return true; > > + > > + /* rely on might_sleep check for soft/hardirq locks */ > > + if (in_atomic()) > > + return true; > > + > > + /* ... and non-recursive readlock */ > > + lock_acquire(&dma_fence_lockdep_map, 0, 0, 1, 1, NULL, _RET_IP_); > > Would it work if signalling path would mark itself as a write lock? I am > thinking it would be nice to see in lockdep splats what are signals and > what are waits. Yeah it'd be nice to have a read vs write name for the lock. But we already have this problem for e.g. flush_work(), from which I've stolen this idea. So it's not really new. Essentially look at the backtraces lockdep gives you, and reconstruct the deadlock. I'm hoping that people will notice the special functions on the backtrace, e.g. dma_fence_begin_signalling will be listed as offending function/lock holder, and then read the kerneldoc. > The recursive usage wouldn't work then right? Would write annotation on > the wait path work? Wait path is write annotations already, but yeah annotating the signalling side as write would cause endless amounts of alse positives. Also it makes composability of these e.g. what I've done in amdgpu with annotations in tdr work in drm/scheduler, annotations in the amdgpu gpu reset code and then also annotations in atomic code, which all nest within each other in some call chains, but not others. Dropping the recursion would break that and make it really awkward to annotate such cases correctly. And the recursion only works if it's read locks, otherwise lockdep complains if you have inconsistent annotations on the signalling side (which again would make it more or less impossible to annotate the above case fully). Cheers, Daniel > > Regards, > > Tvrtko > > > + > > + return false; > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_begin_signalling); > > + > > +/** > > + * dma_fence_end_signalling - end a critical DMA fence signalling sect= ion > > + * > > + * Closes a critical section annotation opened by dma_fence_begin_sign= alling(). > > + */ > > +void dma_fence_end_signalling(bool cookie) > > +{ > > + if (cookie) > > + return; > > + > > + lock_release(&dma_fence_lockdep_map, _RET_IP_); > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_end_signalling); > > + > > +void __dma_fence_might_wait(void) > > +{ > > + bool tmp; > > + > > + tmp =3D lock_is_held_type(&dma_fence_lockdep_map, 1); > > + if (tmp) > > + lock_release(&dma_fence_lockdep_map, _THIS_IP_); > > + lock_map_acquire(&dma_fence_lockdep_map); > > + lock_map_release(&dma_fence_lockdep_map); > > + if (tmp) > > + lock_acquire(&dma_fence_lockdep_map, 0, 0, 1, 1, NULL, _T= HIS_IP_); > > +} > > +#endif > > + > > + > > /** > > * dma_fence_signal_locked - signal completion of a fence > > * @fence: the fence to signal > > @@ -170,14 +324,19 @@ int dma_fence_signal(struct dma_fence *fence) > > { > > unsigned long flags; > > int ret; > > + bool tmp; > > > > if (!fence) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > + tmp =3D dma_fence_begin_signalling(); > > + > > spin_lock_irqsave(fence->lock, flags); > > ret =3D dma_fence_signal_locked(fence); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(fence->lock, flags); > > > > + dma_fence_end_signalling(tmp); > > + > > return ret; > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_fence_signal); > > @@ -210,6 +369,8 @@ dma_fence_wait_timeout(struct dma_fence *fence, boo= l intr, signed long timeout) > > > > might_sleep(); > > > > + __dma_fence_might_wait(); > > + > > trace_dma_fence_wait_start(fence); > > if (fence->ops->wait) > > ret =3D fence->ops->wait(fence, intr, timeout); > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h > > index 3347c54f3a87..3f288f7db2ef 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h > > +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h > > @@ -357,6 +357,18 @@ dma_fence_get_rcu_safe(struct dma_fence __rcu **fe= ncep) > > } while (1); > > } > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP > > +bool dma_fence_begin_signalling(void); > > +void dma_fence_end_signalling(bool cookie); > > +#else > > +static inline bool dma_fence_begin_signalling(void) > > +{ > > + return true; > > +} > > +static inline void dma_fence_end_signalling(bool cookie) {} > > +static inline void __dma_fence_might_wait(void) {} > > +#endif > > + > > int dma_fence_signal(struct dma_fence *fence); > > int dma_fence_signal_locked(struct dma_fence *fence); > > signed long dma_fence_default_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, > > --=20 Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch