All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
	"Tvrtko Ursulin" <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Chris Wilson" <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	"Matthew Auld" <matthew.auld@intel.com>,
	"Janusz Krzysztofik" <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [RESUBMIT][PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gem: Avoid taking runtime-pm under the shrinker
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:56:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220729105625.28269-1-janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> (raw)

From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Inside the shrinker, we cannot wake the device as that may cause
recursion into fs-reclaim, so instead we only unbind vma if the device
is currently awake. (In order to provide reclaim while asleep, we do
wake the device up during kswapd -- we probably want to limit that wake
up if we have anything to shrink though!)

To avoid the same fs_reclaim recursion potential during
i915_gem_object_unbind, we acquire a wakeref there, see commit
3e817471a34c ("drm/i915/gem: Take runtime-pm wakeref prior to unbinding").
However, we use i915_gem_object_unbind from the shrinker path to make the
object available for shrinking and so we must make the wakeref acquisition
here conditional.

<4> [437.542172] ======================================================
<4> [437.542174] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
<4> [437.542176] 5.19.0-rc6-CI_DRM_11876-g2305e0d00665+ #1 Tainted: G     U
<4> [437.542179] ------------------------------------------------------
<4> [437.542181] kswapd0/93 is trying to acquire lock:
<4> [437.542183] ffffffff827a7608 (acpi_wakeup_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: acpi_device_wakeup_disable+0x12/0x50
<4> [437.542191]
but task is already holding lock:
<4> [437.542194] ffffffff8275d360 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: balance_pgdat+0x91/0x5c0
<4> [437.542199]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
<4> [437.542202]
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
<4> [437.542204]
-> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
<4> [437.542207]        fs_reclaim_acquire+0x9d/0xd0
<4> [437.542211]        kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x2a/0x250
<4> [437.542214]        __acpi_device_add+0x263/0x3a0
<4> [437.542217]        acpi_add_single_object+0x3ea/0x710
<4> [437.542220]        acpi_bus_check_add+0xf7/0x240
<4> [437.542222]        acpi_bus_scan+0x34/0xf0
<4> [437.542224]        acpi_scan_init+0xf5/0x241
<4> [437.542228]        acpi_init+0x449/0x4aa
<4> [437.542230]        do_one_initcall+0x53/0x2e0
<4> [437.542233]        kernel_init_freeable+0x18f/0x1dd
<4> [437.542236]        kernel_init+0x11/0x110
<4> [437.542239]        ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
<4> [437.542241]
-> #1 (acpi_device_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
<4> [437.542245]        __mutex_lock+0x97/0xf20
<4> [437.542246]        acpi_enable_wakeup_device_power+0x30/0xf0
<4> [437.542249]        __acpi_device_wakeup_enable+0x31/0x110
<4> [437.542252]        acpi_pm_set_device_wakeup+0x55/0x100
<4> [437.542254]        __pci_enable_wake+0x5e/0xa0
<4> [437.542257]        pci_finish_runtime_suspend+0x32/0x70
<4> [437.542259]        pci_pm_runtime_suspend+0xa3/0x160
<4> [437.542262]        __rpm_callback+0x3d/0x110
<4> [437.542265]        rpm_callback+0x54/0x60
<4> [437.542268]        rpm_suspend.part.10+0x105/0x5a0
<4> [437.542270]        pm_runtime_work+0x7d/0x1e0
<4> [437.542273]        process_one_work+0x272/0x5c0
<4> [437.542276]        worker_thread+0x37/0x370
<4> [437.542278]        kthread+0xed/0x120
<4> [437.542280]        ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
<4> [437.542282]
-> #0 (acpi_wakeup_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
<4> [437.542285]        __lock_acquire+0x15ad/0x2940
<4> [437.542288]        lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310
<4> [437.542291]        __mutex_lock+0x97/0xf20
<4> [437.542293]        acpi_device_wakeup_disable+0x12/0x50
<4> [437.542295]        acpi_pm_set_device_wakeup+0x6e/0x100
<4> [437.542297]        __pci_enable_wake+0x73/0xa0
<4> [437.542300]        pci_pm_runtime_resume+0x45/0x90
<4> [437.542302]        __rpm_callback+0x3d/0x110
<4> [437.542304]        rpm_callback+0x54/0x60
<4> [437.542307]        rpm_resume+0x54f/0x750
<4> [437.542309]        __pm_runtime_resume+0x42/0x80
<4> [437.542311]        __intel_runtime_pm_get+0x19/0x80 [i915]
<4> [437.542386]        i915_gem_object_unbind+0x8f/0x3b0 [i915]
<4> [437.542487]        i915_gem_shrink+0x634/0x850 [i915]
<4> [437.542584]        i915_gem_shrinker_scan+0x3a/0xc0 [i915]
<4> [437.542679]        shrink_slab.constprop.97+0x1a4/0x4f0
<4> [437.542684]        shrink_node+0x21e/0x420
<4> [437.542687]        balance_pgdat+0x241/0x5c0
<4> [437.542690]        kswapd+0x229/0x4f0
<4> [437.542694]        kthread+0xed/0x120
<4> [437.542697]        ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
<4> [437.542701]
other info that might help us debug this:
<4> [437.542705] Chain exists of:
  acpi_wakeup_lock --> acpi_device_lock --> fs_reclaim
<4> [437.542713]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
<4> [437.542716]        CPU0                    CPU1
<4> [437.542719]        ----                    ----
<4> [437.542721]   lock(fs_reclaim);
<4> [437.542725]                                lock(acpi_device_lock);
<4> [437.542728]                                lock(fs_reclaim);
<4> [437.542732]   lock(acpi_wakeup_lock);
<4> [437.542736]
 *** DEADLOCK ***

Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/6449
Fixes: 3e817471a34c ("drm/i915/gem: Take runtime-pm wakeref prior to unbinding")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.6+
Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
---
Resubmit reason: keep in series with the other patch while dropping RFC
label from it.

 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 702e5b89be22..910a6fde5726 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -119,8 +119,8 @@ int i915_gem_object_unbind(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 {
 	struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm = &to_i915(obj->base.dev)->runtime_pm;
 	bool vm_trylock = !!(flags & I915_GEM_OBJECT_UNBIND_VM_TRYLOCK);
+	intel_wakeref_t wakeref = 0;
 	LIST_HEAD(still_in_list);
-	intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
 	struct i915_vma *vma;
 	int ret;
 
@@ -135,7 +135,8 @@ int i915_gem_object_unbind(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 	 * as they are required by the shrinker. Ergo, we wake the device up
 	 * first just in case.
 	 */
-	wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(rpm);
+	if (!(flags & I915_GEM_OBJECT_UNBIND_TEST))
+		wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(rpm);
 
 try_again:
 	ret = 0;
@@ -200,7 +201,8 @@ int i915_gem_object_unbind(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 		goto try_again;
 	}
 
-	intel_runtime_pm_put(rpm, wakeref);
+	if (wakeref)
+		intel_runtime_pm_put(rpm, wakeref);
 
 	return ret;
 }
-- 
2.25.1


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Chris Wilson" <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
	"Matthew Auld" <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [RESUBMIT][PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gem: Avoid taking runtime-pm under the shrinker
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:56:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220729105625.28269-1-janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com> (raw)

From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

Inside the shrinker, we cannot wake the device as that may cause
recursion into fs-reclaim, so instead we only unbind vma if the device
is currently awake. (In order to provide reclaim while asleep, we do
wake the device up during kswapd -- we probably want to limit that wake
up if we have anything to shrink though!)

To avoid the same fs_reclaim recursion potential during
i915_gem_object_unbind, we acquire a wakeref there, see commit
3e817471a34c ("drm/i915/gem: Take runtime-pm wakeref prior to unbinding").
However, we use i915_gem_object_unbind from the shrinker path to make the
object available for shrinking and so we must make the wakeref acquisition
here conditional.

<4> [437.542172] ======================================================
<4> [437.542174] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
<4> [437.542176] 5.19.0-rc6-CI_DRM_11876-g2305e0d00665+ #1 Tainted: G     U
<4> [437.542179] ------------------------------------------------------
<4> [437.542181] kswapd0/93 is trying to acquire lock:
<4> [437.542183] ffffffff827a7608 (acpi_wakeup_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: acpi_device_wakeup_disable+0x12/0x50
<4> [437.542191]
but task is already holding lock:
<4> [437.542194] ffffffff8275d360 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: balance_pgdat+0x91/0x5c0
<4> [437.542199]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
<4> [437.542202]
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
<4> [437.542204]
-> #2 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
<4> [437.542207]        fs_reclaim_acquire+0x9d/0xd0
<4> [437.542211]        kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x2a/0x250
<4> [437.542214]        __acpi_device_add+0x263/0x3a0
<4> [437.542217]        acpi_add_single_object+0x3ea/0x710
<4> [437.542220]        acpi_bus_check_add+0xf7/0x240
<4> [437.542222]        acpi_bus_scan+0x34/0xf0
<4> [437.542224]        acpi_scan_init+0xf5/0x241
<4> [437.542228]        acpi_init+0x449/0x4aa
<4> [437.542230]        do_one_initcall+0x53/0x2e0
<4> [437.542233]        kernel_init_freeable+0x18f/0x1dd
<4> [437.542236]        kernel_init+0x11/0x110
<4> [437.542239]        ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
<4> [437.542241]
-> #1 (acpi_device_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
<4> [437.542245]        __mutex_lock+0x97/0xf20
<4> [437.542246]        acpi_enable_wakeup_device_power+0x30/0xf0
<4> [437.542249]        __acpi_device_wakeup_enable+0x31/0x110
<4> [437.542252]        acpi_pm_set_device_wakeup+0x55/0x100
<4> [437.542254]        __pci_enable_wake+0x5e/0xa0
<4> [437.542257]        pci_finish_runtime_suspend+0x32/0x70
<4> [437.542259]        pci_pm_runtime_suspend+0xa3/0x160
<4> [437.542262]        __rpm_callback+0x3d/0x110
<4> [437.542265]        rpm_callback+0x54/0x60
<4> [437.542268]        rpm_suspend.part.10+0x105/0x5a0
<4> [437.542270]        pm_runtime_work+0x7d/0x1e0
<4> [437.542273]        process_one_work+0x272/0x5c0
<4> [437.542276]        worker_thread+0x37/0x370
<4> [437.542278]        kthread+0xed/0x120
<4> [437.542280]        ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
<4> [437.542282]
-> #0 (acpi_wakeup_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
<4> [437.542285]        __lock_acquire+0x15ad/0x2940
<4> [437.542288]        lock_acquire+0xd3/0x310
<4> [437.542291]        __mutex_lock+0x97/0xf20
<4> [437.542293]        acpi_device_wakeup_disable+0x12/0x50
<4> [437.542295]        acpi_pm_set_device_wakeup+0x6e/0x100
<4> [437.542297]        __pci_enable_wake+0x73/0xa0
<4> [437.542300]        pci_pm_runtime_resume+0x45/0x90
<4> [437.542302]        __rpm_callback+0x3d/0x110
<4> [437.542304]        rpm_callback+0x54/0x60
<4> [437.542307]        rpm_resume+0x54f/0x750
<4> [437.542309]        __pm_runtime_resume+0x42/0x80
<4> [437.542311]        __intel_runtime_pm_get+0x19/0x80 [i915]
<4> [437.542386]        i915_gem_object_unbind+0x8f/0x3b0 [i915]
<4> [437.542487]        i915_gem_shrink+0x634/0x850 [i915]
<4> [437.542584]        i915_gem_shrinker_scan+0x3a/0xc0 [i915]
<4> [437.542679]        shrink_slab.constprop.97+0x1a4/0x4f0
<4> [437.542684]        shrink_node+0x21e/0x420
<4> [437.542687]        balance_pgdat+0x241/0x5c0
<4> [437.542690]        kswapd+0x229/0x4f0
<4> [437.542694]        kthread+0xed/0x120
<4> [437.542697]        ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
<4> [437.542701]
other info that might help us debug this:
<4> [437.542705] Chain exists of:
  acpi_wakeup_lock --> acpi_device_lock --> fs_reclaim
<4> [437.542713]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
<4> [437.542716]        CPU0                    CPU1
<4> [437.542719]        ----                    ----
<4> [437.542721]   lock(fs_reclaim);
<4> [437.542725]                                lock(acpi_device_lock);
<4> [437.542728]                                lock(fs_reclaim);
<4> [437.542732]   lock(acpi_wakeup_lock);
<4> [437.542736]
 *** DEADLOCK ***

Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/6449
Fixes: 3e817471a34c ("drm/i915/gem: Take runtime-pm wakeref prior to unbinding")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.6+
Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
---
Resubmit reason: keep in series with the other patch while dropping RFC
label from it.

 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 702e5b89be22..910a6fde5726 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -119,8 +119,8 @@ int i915_gem_object_unbind(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 {
 	struct intel_runtime_pm *rpm = &to_i915(obj->base.dev)->runtime_pm;
 	bool vm_trylock = !!(flags & I915_GEM_OBJECT_UNBIND_VM_TRYLOCK);
+	intel_wakeref_t wakeref = 0;
 	LIST_HEAD(still_in_list);
-	intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
 	struct i915_vma *vma;
 	int ret;
 
@@ -135,7 +135,8 @@ int i915_gem_object_unbind(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 	 * as they are required by the shrinker. Ergo, we wake the device up
 	 * first just in case.
 	 */
-	wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(rpm);
+	if (!(flags & I915_GEM_OBJECT_UNBIND_TEST))
+		wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get(rpm);
 
 try_again:
 	ret = 0;
@@ -200,7 +201,8 @@ int i915_gem_object_unbind(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 		goto try_again;
 	}
 
-	intel_runtime_pm_put(rpm, wakeref);
+	if (wakeref)
+		intel_runtime_pm_put(rpm, wakeref);
 
 	return ret;
 }
-- 
2.25.1


             reply	other threads:[~2022-07-29 10:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-07-29 10:56 Janusz Krzysztofik [this message]
2022-07-29 10:56 ` [Intel-gfx] [RESUBMIT][PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gem: Avoid taking runtime-pm under the shrinker Janusz Krzysztofik
2022-07-29 10:56 ` [RESUBMIT][PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gem: Perform active shrinking from a background thread Janusz Krzysztofik
2022-07-29 10:56   ` [Intel-gfx] " Janusz Krzysztofik
2022-08-01 18:10 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [RESUBMIT,1/2] drm/i915/gem: Avoid taking runtime-pm under the shrinker Patchwork
2022-08-01 18:29 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2022-08-02  2:53 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2022-08-08 15:46 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: success " Patchwork

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=20220729105625.28269-1-janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com \
    --to=janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
    --cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
    /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.