| Message ID | 20190819161204.3106-3-robh@kernel.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | panfrost: Locking fixes | expand |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:12:02AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > Lockdep reports a circular locking dependency with pages_lock taken in > the shrinker callback. The deadlock can't actually happen with current > users at least as a BO will never be purgeable when pages_lock is held. > To be safe, let's use mutex_trylock() instead and bail if a BO is locked > already. > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 5.3.0-rc1+ #100 Tainted: G L > ------------------------------------------------------ > kswapd0/171 is trying to acquire lock: > 000000009b9823fd (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}, at: drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 > > but task is already holding lock: > 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}: > fs_reclaim_acquire.part.18+0x34/0x40 > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x20/0x28 > __kmalloc_node+0x6c/0x4c0 > kvmalloc_node+0x38/0xa8 > drm_gem_get_pages+0x80/0x1d0 > drm_gem_shmem_get_pages+0x58/0xa0 > drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_sgt+0x48/0xd0 > panfrost_mmu_map+0x38/0xf8 [panfrost] > panfrost_gem_open+0xc0/0xe8 [panfrost] > drm_gem_handle_create_tail+0xe8/0x198 > drm_gem_handle_create+0x3c/0x50 > panfrost_gem_create_with_handle+0x70/0xa0 [panfrost] > panfrost_ioctl_create_bo+0x48/0x80 [panfrost] > drm_ioctl_kernel+0xb8/0x110 > drm_ioctl+0x244/0x3f0 > do_vfs_ioctl+0xbc/0x910 > ksys_ioctl+0x78/0xa8 > __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x1c/0x28 > el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x90/0x168 > el0_svc_handler+0x28/0x78 > el0_svc+0x8/0xc > > -> #0 (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}: > __lock_acquire+0xa2c/0x1d70 > lock_acquire+0xdc/0x228 > __mutex_lock+0x8c/0x800 > mutex_lock_nested+0x1c/0x28 > drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 > panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0xc0/0x180 [panfrost] > do_shrink_slab+0x208/0x500 > shrink_slab+0x10c/0x2c0 > shrink_node+0x28c/0x4d8 > balance_pgdat+0x2c8/0x570 > kswapd+0x22c/0x638 > kthread+0x128/0x130 > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(fs_reclaim); > lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > lock(fs_reclaim); > lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > 3 locks held by kswapd0/171: > #0: 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 > #1: 00000000ceb37808 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}, at: shrink_slab+0xbc/0x2c0 > #2: 00000000f31efa81 (&pfdev->shrinker_lock){+.+.}, at: panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0x34/0x180 [panfrost] > > Fixes: 17acb9f35ed7 ("drm/shmem: Add madvise state and purge helpers") > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> > Cc: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 7 +++++-- > include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > index 5423ec56b535..f5918707672f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > @@ -415,13 +415,16 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked); > > -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > { > struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem = to_drm_gem_shmem_obj(obj); > > - mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > + if (!mutex_trylock(&shmem->pages_lock)) Did you see my ping about cutting all the locking over to dma_resv? Would align shmem helpers with ttm a lot more, for that bright glorious future taste. Should we capture that in some todo.rst entry? Cheers, Daniel > + return false; > drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(obj); > mutex_unlock(&shmem->pages_lock); > + > + return true; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_purge); > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h > index ce1600fdfc3e..01f514521687 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h > @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static inline bool drm_gem_shmem_is_purgeable(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem > } > > void drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj); > -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj); > +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj); > > struct drm_gem_shmem_object * > drm_gem_shmem_create_with_handle(struct drm_file *file_priv, > -- > 2.20.1 >
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:05 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:12:02AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > Lockdep reports a circular locking dependency with pages_lock taken in > > the shrinker callback. The deadlock can't actually happen with current > > users at least as a BO will never be purgeable when pages_lock is held. > > To be safe, let's use mutex_trylock() instead and bail if a BO is locked > > already. > > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > 5.3.0-rc1+ #100 Tainted: G L > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > kswapd0/171 is trying to acquire lock: > > 000000009b9823fd (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}, at: drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 > > > > but task is already holding lock: > > 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 > > > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > > > -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}: > > fs_reclaim_acquire.part.18+0x34/0x40 > > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x20/0x28 > > __kmalloc_node+0x6c/0x4c0 > > kvmalloc_node+0x38/0xa8 > > drm_gem_get_pages+0x80/0x1d0 > > drm_gem_shmem_get_pages+0x58/0xa0 > > drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_sgt+0x48/0xd0 > > panfrost_mmu_map+0x38/0xf8 [panfrost] > > panfrost_gem_open+0xc0/0xe8 [panfrost] > > drm_gem_handle_create_tail+0xe8/0x198 > > drm_gem_handle_create+0x3c/0x50 > > panfrost_gem_create_with_handle+0x70/0xa0 [panfrost] > > panfrost_ioctl_create_bo+0x48/0x80 [panfrost] > > drm_ioctl_kernel+0xb8/0x110 > > drm_ioctl+0x244/0x3f0 > > do_vfs_ioctl+0xbc/0x910 > > ksys_ioctl+0x78/0xa8 > > __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x1c/0x28 > > el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x90/0x168 > > el0_svc_handler+0x28/0x78 > > el0_svc+0x8/0xc > > > > -> #0 (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}: > > __lock_acquire+0xa2c/0x1d70 > > lock_acquire+0xdc/0x228 > > __mutex_lock+0x8c/0x800 > > mutex_lock_nested+0x1c/0x28 > > drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 > > panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0xc0/0x180 [panfrost] > > do_shrink_slab+0x208/0x500 > > shrink_slab+0x10c/0x2c0 > > shrink_node+0x28c/0x4d8 > > balance_pgdat+0x2c8/0x570 > > kswapd+0x22c/0x638 > > kthread+0x128/0x130 > > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > > > CPU0 CPU1 > > ---- ---- > > lock(fs_reclaim); > > lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > lock(fs_reclaim); > > lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > > > 3 locks held by kswapd0/171: > > #0: 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 > > #1: 00000000ceb37808 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}, at: shrink_slab+0xbc/0x2c0 > > #2: 00000000f31efa81 (&pfdev->shrinker_lock){+.+.}, at: panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0x34/0x180 [panfrost] > > > > Fixes: 17acb9f35ed7 ("drm/shmem: Add madvise state and purge helpers") > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> > > Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> > > Cc: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> > > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie> > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 7 +++++-- > > include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > > index 5423ec56b535..f5918707672f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > > @@ -415,13 +415,16 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked); > > > > -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > { > > struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem = to_drm_gem_shmem_obj(obj); > > > > - mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > + if (!mutex_trylock(&shmem->pages_lock)) > > Did you see my ping about cutting all the locking over to dma_resv? Yes, but you didn't reply to Rob C. about it. I guess I'll have to go figure out how reservation objects work... > Would > align shmem helpers with ttm a lot more, for that bright glorious future > taste. Should we capture that in some todo.rst entry? Sure. Rob
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:35:47AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:05 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:12:02AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > Lockdep reports a circular locking dependency with pages_lock taken in > > > the shrinker callback. The deadlock can't actually happen with current > > > users at least as a BO will never be purgeable when pages_lock is held. > > > To be safe, let's use mutex_trylock() instead and bail if a BO is locked > > > already. > > > > > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > > > 5.3.0-rc1+ #100 Tainted: G L > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > kswapd0/171 is trying to acquire lock: > > > 000000009b9823fd (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}, at: drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 > > > > > > but task is already holding lock: > > > 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 > > > > > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > > > > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > > > > > -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}: > > > fs_reclaim_acquire.part.18+0x34/0x40 > > > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x20/0x28 > > > __kmalloc_node+0x6c/0x4c0 > > > kvmalloc_node+0x38/0xa8 > > > drm_gem_get_pages+0x80/0x1d0 > > > drm_gem_shmem_get_pages+0x58/0xa0 > > > drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_sgt+0x48/0xd0 > > > panfrost_mmu_map+0x38/0xf8 [panfrost] > > > panfrost_gem_open+0xc0/0xe8 [panfrost] > > > drm_gem_handle_create_tail+0xe8/0x198 > > > drm_gem_handle_create+0x3c/0x50 > > > panfrost_gem_create_with_handle+0x70/0xa0 [panfrost] > > > panfrost_ioctl_create_bo+0x48/0x80 [panfrost] > > > drm_ioctl_kernel+0xb8/0x110 > > > drm_ioctl+0x244/0x3f0 > > > do_vfs_ioctl+0xbc/0x910 > > > ksys_ioctl+0x78/0xa8 > > > __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x1c/0x28 > > > el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x90/0x168 > > > el0_svc_handler+0x28/0x78 > > > el0_svc+0x8/0xc > > > > > > -> #0 (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}: > > > __lock_acquire+0xa2c/0x1d70 > > > lock_acquire+0xdc/0x228 > > > __mutex_lock+0x8c/0x800 > > > mutex_lock_nested+0x1c/0x28 > > > drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 > > > panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0xc0/0x180 [panfrost] > > > do_shrink_slab+0x208/0x500 > > > shrink_slab+0x10c/0x2c0 > > > shrink_node+0x28c/0x4d8 > > > balance_pgdat+0x2c8/0x570 > > > kswapd+0x22c/0x638 > > > kthread+0x128/0x130 > > > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 > > > > > > other info that might help us debug this: > > > > > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > > > > > CPU0 CPU1 > > > ---- ---- > > > lock(fs_reclaim); > > > lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > > lock(fs_reclaim); > > > lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > > > > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > > > > > 3 locks held by kswapd0/171: > > > #0: 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 > > > #1: 00000000ceb37808 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}, at: shrink_slab+0xbc/0x2c0 > > > #2: 00000000f31efa81 (&pfdev->shrinker_lock){+.+.}, at: panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0x34/0x180 [panfrost] > > > > > > Fixes: 17acb9f35ed7 ("drm/shmem: Add madvise state and purge helpers") > > > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> > > > Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> > > > Cc: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> > > > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie> > > > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 7 +++++-- > > > include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h | 2 +- > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > > > index 5423ec56b535..f5918707672f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > > > @@ -415,13 +415,16 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > > } > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked); > > > > > > -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > > +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > > { > > > struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem = to_drm_gem_shmem_obj(obj); > > > > > > - mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > > + if (!mutex_trylock(&shmem->pages_lock)) > > > > Did you see my ping about cutting all the locking over to dma_resv? > > Yes, but you didn't reply to Rob C. about it. I guess I'll have to go > figure out how reservation objects work... msm was the last driver that still used struct_mutex. It's a long-term dead-end, and I think with all the effort recently to create helpers for rendering drivers (shmem, vram, ttm refactoring) we should make a solid attempt to get aligned. Or did you mean that Rob Clark had some reply/questions that I didn' respond to because it fell through cracks? > > Would > > align shmem helpers with ttm a lot more, for that bright glorious future > > taste. Should we capture that in some todo.rst entry? > > Sure. Cheers, Daniel
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:23 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:35:47AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:05 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:12:02AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > Lockdep reports a circular locking dependency with pages_lock taken in > > > > the shrinker callback. The deadlock can't actually happen with current > > > > users at least as a BO will never be purgeable when pages_lock is held. > > > > To be safe, let's use mutex_trylock() instead and bail if a BO is locked > > > > already. [...] > > > > -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > > > +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > > > { > > > > struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem = to_drm_gem_shmem_obj(obj); > > > > > > > > - mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > > > + if (!mutex_trylock(&shmem->pages_lock)) > > > > > > Did you see my ping about cutting all the locking over to dma_resv? > > > > Yes, but you didn't reply to Rob C. about it. I guess I'll have to go > > figure out how reservation objects work... > > msm was the last driver that still used struct_mutex. It's a long-term > dead-end, and I think with all the effort recently to create helpers for > rendering drivers (shmem, vram, ttm refactoring) we should make a solid > attempt to get aligned. Or did you mean that Rob Clark had some > reply/questions that I didn' respond to because it fell through cracks? I'm not using struct_mutex, so I'm confused as to why you keep mentioning it. The list of BOs for the shrinker is protected with a mutex for the list. That list head, list mutex, and the shrinker instance all have to live at the driver level, so they can't be moved into shmem as you suggested. Agreed? Then there is the pages_lock within the shmem BO. I assume that is what you are suggesting converting to dma_resv? I'm not really sure what that would look like. You're going to have to spell it out for me. In my brief look at it, it seems like added complexity and it's not clear to me what that buys. Also, I think it would mostly be an internal implementation detail of shmem helpers, though there is one spot in panfrost that takes the lock (2 before this series). So it's kind of orthogonal to this series. Also, I think getting more drivers using shmem is more beneficial than aligning the implementations of the GEM helpers. We should at least be able to convert vgem and vkms I would think. Various KMS drivers too, but there's an issue around kernel mappings (or lack of). There really should be little reason for most KMS drivers to have a custom BO as CMA or shmem helpers should work. Rob
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:03:55AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 3:23 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:35:47AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 4:05 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:12:02AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > Lockdep reports a circular locking dependency with pages_lock taken in > > > > > the shrinker callback. The deadlock can't actually happen with current > > > > > users at least as a BO will never be purgeable when pages_lock is held. > > > > > To be safe, let's use mutex_trylock() instead and bail if a BO is locked > > > > > already. > > [...] > > > > > > -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > > > > +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > > > > > { > > > > > struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem = to_drm_gem_shmem_obj(obj); > > > > > > > > > > - mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > > > > + if (!mutex_trylock(&shmem->pages_lock)) > > > > > > > > Did you see my ping about cutting all the locking over to dma_resv? > > > > > > Yes, but you didn't reply to Rob C. about it. I guess I'll have to go > > > figure out how reservation objects work... > > > > msm was the last driver that still used struct_mutex. It's a long-term > > dead-end, and I think with all the effort recently to create helpers for > > rendering drivers (shmem, vram, ttm refactoring) we should make a solid > > attempt to get aligned. Or did you mean that Rob Clark had some > > reply/questions that I didn' respond to because it fell through cracks? > > I'm not using struct_mutex, so I'm confused as to why you keep > mentioning it. The list of BOs for the shrinker is protected with a > mutex for the list. That list head, list mutex, and the shrinker > instance all have to live at the driver level, so they can't be moved > into shmem as you suggested. Agreed? struct_mutex is just the historical baggage. Wrt shrinker/lru, why not? We've talked about maybe moving that to make it easier to share ... > Then there is the pages_lock within the shmem BO. I assume that is > what you are suggesting converting to dma_resv? I'm not really sure > what that would look like. You're going to have to spell it out for > me. In my brief look at it, it seems like added complexity and it's > not clear to me what that buys. Also, I think it would mostly be an > internal implementation detail of shmem helpers, though there is one > spot in panfrost that takes the lock (2 before this series). So it's > kind of orthogonal to this series. The issue roughly is that having multiple per-bo locks gets fun, once you add in multiple drivers and dynamic dma-buf sharing. Maybe that's never going to be an issue for drivers using shmem helpers, but who knows. The cross-driver per-bo lock to untangle that maze is dma_resv, and if you then also have your own per-bo locks it can get rather interesting. Best case you end up with two locks nesting, and your own per-bo lock being fully redundant. Worst case you get different nesting depending whether you import or export. So that's roughly the context. Of course fixing locking is going to be easier the fewer users you have. Once there's lots of code and users of it out there, it's pretty much impossible. So yeah it would be a 1:1 replacement with all the per-bo locks you have now, and seeing how badly it bites. > Also, I think getting more drivers using shmem is more beneficial than > aligning the implementations of the GEM helpers. We should at least be > able to convert vgem and vkms I would think. Various KMS drivers too, > but there's an issue around kernel mappings (or lack of). There really > should be little reason for most KMS drivers to have a custom BO as > CMA or shmem helpers should work. Yeah agreed on this, I just want to make sure we're not doing this multiple times ... -Daniel
On 19/08/2019 17:12, Rob Herring wrote: > Lockdep reports a circular locking dependency with pages_lock taken in > the shrinker callback. The deadlock can't actually happen with current > users at least as a BO will never be purgeable when pages_lock is held. > To be safe, let's use mutex_trylock() instead and bail if a BO is locked > already. > > WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected > 5.3.0-rc1+ #100 Tainted: G L > ------------------------------------------------------ > kswapd0/171 is trying to acquire lock: > 000000009b9823fd (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}, at: drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 > > but task is already holding lock: > 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. > > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}: > fs_reclaim_acquire.part.18+0x34/0x40 > fs_reclaim_acquire+0x20/0x28 > __kmalloc_node+0x6c/0x4c0 > kvmalloc_node+0x38/0xa8 > drm_gem_get_pages+0x80/0x1d0 > drm_gem_shmem_get_pages+0x58/0xa0 > drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_sgt+0x48/0xd0 > panfrost_mmu_map+0x38/0xf8 [panfrost] > panfrost_gem_open+0xc0/0xe8 [panfrost] > drm_gem_handle_create_tail+0xe8/0x198 > drm_gem_handle_create+0x3c/0x50 > panfrost_gem_create_with_handle+0x70/0xa0 [panfrost] > panfrost_ioctl_create_bo+0x48/0x80 [panfrost] > drm_ioctl_kernel+0xb8/0x110 > drm_ioctl+0x244/0x3f0 > do_vfs_ioctl+0xbc/0x910 > ksys_ioctl+0x78/0xa8 > __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x1c/0x28 > el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x90/0x168 > el0_svc_handler+0x28/0x78 > el0_svc+0x8/0xc > > -> #0 (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}: > __lock_acquire+0xa2c/0x1d70 > lock_acquire+0xdc/0x228 > __mutex_lock+0x8c/0x800 > mutex_lock_nested+0x1c/0x28 > drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 > panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0xc0/0x180 [panfrost] > do_shrink_slab+0x208/0x500 > shrink_slab+0x10c/0x2c0 > shrink_node+0x28c/0x4d8 > balance_pgdat+0x2c8/0x570 > kswapd+0x22c/0x638 > kthread+0x128/0x130 > ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 > > other info that might help us debug this: > > Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > CPU0 CPU1 > ---- ---- > lock(fs_reclaim); > lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > lock(fs_reclaim); > lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > > *** DEADLOCK *** > > 3 locks held by kswapd0/171: > #0: 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 > #1: 00000000ceb37808 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}, at: shrink_slab+0xbc/0x2c0 > #2: 00000000f31efa81 (&pfdev->shrinker_lock){+.+.}, at: panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0x34/0x180 [panfrost] > > Fixes: 17acb9f35ed7 ("drm/shmem: Add madvise state and purge helpers") > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> > Cc: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> > Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> Seems reasonable, like you state I don't think this can actually happen, but keeping lockdep happy is a good idea. Reviewed-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> Steve > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 7 +++++-- > include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > index 5423ec56b535..f5918707672f 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c > @@ -415,13 +415,16 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked); > > -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > { > struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem = to_drm_gem_shmem_obj(obj); > > - mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock); > + if (!mutex_trylock(&shmem->pages_lock)) > + return false; > drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(obj); > mutex_unlock(&shmem->pages_lock); > + > + return true; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_purge); > > diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h > index ce1600fdfc3e..01f514521687 100644 > --- a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h > +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h > @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static inline bool drm_gem_shmem_is_purgeable(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem > } > > void drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj); > -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj); > +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj); > > struct drm_gem_shmem_object * > drm_gem_shmem_create_with_handle(struct drm_file *file_priv, >
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c index 5423ec56b535..f5918707672f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c @@ -415,13 +415,16 @@ void drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj) } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked); -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj) { struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem = to_drm_gem_shmem_obj(obj); - mutex_lock(&shmem->pages_lock); + if (!mutex_trylock(&shmem->pages_lock)) + return false; drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(obj); mutex_unlock(&shmem->pages_lock); + + return true; } EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_gem_shmem_purge); diff --git a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h index ce1600fdfc3e..01f514521687 100644 --- a/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h +++ b/include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static inline bool drm_gem_shmem_is_purgeable(struct drm_gem_shmem_object *shmem } void drm_gem_shmem_purge_locked(struct drm_gem_object *obj); -void drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj); +bool drm_gem_shmem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj); struct drm_gem_shmem_object * drm_gem_shmem_create_with_handle(struct drm_file *file_priv,
Lockdep reports a circular locking dependency with pages_lock taken in the shrinker callback. The deadlock can't actually happen with current users at least as a BO will never be purgeable when pages_lock is held. To be safe, let's use mutex_trylock() instead and bail if a BO is locked already. WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 5.3.0-rc1+ #100 Tainted: G L ------------------------------------------------------ kswapd0/171 is trying to acquire lock: 000000009b9823fd (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}, at: drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 but task is already holding lock: 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}: fs_reclaim_acquire.part.18+0x34/0x40 fs_reclaim_acquire+0x20/0x28 __kmalloc_node+0x6c/0x4c0 kvmalloc_node+0x38/0xa8 drm_gem_get_pages+0x80/0x1d0 drm_gem_shmem_get_pages+0x58/0xa0 drm_gem_shmem_get_pages_sgt+0x48/0xd0 panfrost_mmu_map+0x38/0xf8 [panfrost] panfrost_gem_open+0xc0/0xe8 [panfrost] drm_gem_handle_create_tail+0xe8/0x198 drm_gem_handle_create+0x3c/0x50 panfrost_gem_create_with_handle+0x70/0xa0 [panfrost] panfrost_ioctl_create_bo+0x48/0x80 [panfrost] drm_ioctl_kernel+0xb8/0x110 drm_ioctl+0x244/0x3f0 do_vfs_ioctl+0xbc/0x910 ksys_ioctl+0x78/0xa8 __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x1c/0x28 el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x90/0x168 el0_svc_handler+0x28/0x78 el0_svc+0x8/0xc -> #0 (&shmem->pages_lock){+.+.}: __lock_acquire+0xa2c/0x1d70 lock_acquire+0xdc/0x228 __mutex_lock+0x8c/0x800 mutex_lock_nested+0x1c/0x28 drm_gem_shmem_purge+0x20/0x40 panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0xc0/0x180 [panfrost] do_shrink_slab+0x208/0x500 shrink_slab+0x10c/0x2c0 shrink_node+0x28c/0x4d8 balance_pgdat+0x2c8/0x570 kswapd+0x22c/0x638 kthread+0x128/0x130 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18 other info that might help us debug this: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(fs_reclaim); lock(&shmem->pages_lock); lock(fs_reclaim); lock(&shmem->pages_lock); *** DEADLOCK *** 3 locks held by kswapd0/171: #0: 00000000f82369b6 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}, at: __fs_reclaim_acquire+0x0/0x40 #1: 00000000ceb37808 (shrinker_rwsem){++++}, at: shrink_slab+0xbc/0x2c0 #2: 00000000f31efa81 (&pfdev->shrinker_lock){+.+.}, at: panfrost_gem_shrinker_scan+0x34/0x180 [panfrost] Fixes: 17acb9f35ed7 ("drm/shmem: Add madvise state and purge helpers") Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com> Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> Cc: Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run> Cc: David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.c | 7 +++++-- include/drm/drm_gem_shmem_helper.h | 2 +- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)