On 6/5/20 3:29 PM, 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 peterz@infradead.org Date: Wed Aug 23 13:13:11 2017 +0200
locking/lockdep/selftests: Add mixed read-write ABBA testsTo 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 and 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.
Originally I hope that the cross-release lockdep extensions would alleviate the need for explicit annotations:
https://lwn.net/Articles/709849/
But there's a few reasons why that's not an option:
It's not happening in upstream, since it got reverted due to too many false positives:
commit e966eaeeb623f09975ef362c2866fae6f86844f9 Author: Ingo Molnar mingo@kernel.org Date: Tue Dec 12 12:31:16 2017 +0100
locking/lockdep: Remove the cross-release locking checks This code (CONFIG_LOCKDEP_CROSSRELEASE=y and CONFIG_LOCKDEP_COMPLETIONS=y), while it found a number of old bugs initially, was also causing too many false positives that caused people to disable lockdep - which is arguably a worse overall outcome.cross-release uses the complete() call to annotate the end of critical sections, for dma_fence that would be dma_fence_signal(). But we do not want all dma_fence_signal() calls to be treated as critical, since many are opportunistic cleanup of gpu requests. If these get stuck there's still the main completion interrupt and workers who can unblock everyone. Automatically annotating all dma_fence_signal() calls would hence cause false positives.
cross-release had some educated guesses for when a critical section starts, like fresh syscall or fresh work callback. This would again cause false positives without explicit annotations, since for dma_fence the critical sections only starts when we publish a fence.
Furthermore there can be cases where a thread never does a dma_fence_signal, but is still critical for reaching completion of fences. One example would be a scheduler kthread which picks up jobs and pushes them into hardware, where the interrupt handler or another completion thread calls dma_fence_signal(). But if the scheduler thread hangs, then all the fences hang, hence we need to manually annotate it. cross-release aimed to solve this by chaining cross-release dependencies, but the dependency from scheduler thread to the completion interrupt handler goes through hw where cross-release code can't observe it.
In short, without manual annotations and careful review of the start and end of critical sections, cross-relese dependency tracking doesn't work. We need explicit annotations.
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
v5: Amend commit message to explain in detail why cross-release isn't the solution.
Cc: Mika Kuoppala mika.kuoppala@intel.com Cc: Thomas Hellstrom thomas.hellstrom@intel.com 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
Reviewed-by: Thomas Hellström thomas.hellstrom@intel.com