Am 15.08.2018 um 20:17 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
On 2018-08-15 03:02 AM, Christian König wrote:
Hi Felix,

yeah, you pretty much nailed it.

The problem is that the array itself is RCU protected. This means that
you can only copy the whole structure when you want to update it.

The exception is reservation_object_add_shared() which only works
because we replace an either signaled fence or a fence within the same
context but a later sequence number.

This also explains why this is only a band aid and the whole approach
of removing fences doesn't work in general. At any time somebody could
have taken an RCU reference to the old array, created a copy of it and
is now still using this one.

The only 100% correct solution would be to mark the existing fence as
signaled and replace it everywhere else.
Depends what you're trying to achieve. I think the problem you see is,
that some reader may still be using the old reservation_object_list copy
with the fence still in it. But, the remaining lifetime of the
reservation_object_list copy is limited. If we wanted to be sure no more
copies with the old fence exist, all we'd need to do is call
synchronize_rcu. Maybe we need to do that before releasing the fence
references, or release the fence reference in an RCU callback to be safe.

The assumption that the fence would die with the array is what is incorrect here.

The lifetime of RCUed array object is limit, but there is absolutely no guarantee that somebody didn't made a copy of the fences.

E.g. somebody could have called reservation_object_get_fences_rcu(), reservation_object_copy_fences() or a concurrent reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() is underway.

That's also the reason why fences live for much longer than their signaling, e.g. somebody can have a reference to the fence object even hours after it is signaled.

Regards,
Christian.


Regards,
   Felix

Going to fix the copy&paste error I made with the sequence number and
send it out again.

Regards,
Christian.

Am 14.08.2018 um 22:17 schrieb Felix Kuehling:
[+Harish]

I think this looks good for the most part. See one comment inline below.

But bear with me while I'm trying to understand what was wrong with the
old code. Please correct me if I get this wrong or point out anything
I'm missing.

The reservation_object_list looks to be protected by a combination of
three mechanism:

    * Holding the reservation object
    * RCU
    * seqcount

Updating the fence list requires holding the reservation object. But
there are some readers that can be called without holding that lock
(reservation_object_copy_fences, reservation_object_get_fences_rcu,
reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu,
reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu). They rely on RCU to work on a
copy and seqcount to make sure they had the most up-to-date information.
So any function updating the fence lists needs to do RCU and seqcount
correctly to prevent breaking those readers.

As I understand it, RCU with seqcount retry just means that readers will
spin retrying while there are writers, and writers are never blocked by
readers. Writers are blocked by each other, because they need to hold
the reservation.

The code you added looks a lot like
reservation_object_add_shared_replace, which removes fences that have
signalled, and atomically replaces obj->fences with a new
reservation_fence_list. That atomicity is important because each pointer
in the obj->fences->shared array is separately protected by RCU, but not
the array as a whole or the shared_count.

See one comment inline.

Regards,
    Felix

On 2018-08-14 03:39 AM, Christian König wrote:
Fix quite a number of bugs here. Unfortunately only compile tested.

Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
---
   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c | 103
++++++++++-------------
   1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c
index fa38a960ce00..dece31516dc4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm.c
@@ -206,11 +206,9 @@ static int
amdgpu_amdkfd_remove_eviction_fence(struct amdgpu_bo *bo,
                       struct amdgpu_amdkfd_fence ***ef_list,
                       unsigned int *ef_count)
   {
-    struct reservation_object_list *fobj;
-    struct reservation_object *resv;
-    unsigned int i = 0, j = 0, k = 0, shared_count;
-    unsigned int count = 0;
-    struct amdgpu_amdkfd_fence **fence_list;
+    struct reservation_object *resv = bo->tbo.resv;
+    struct reservation_object_list *old, *new;
+    unsigned int i, j, k;
         if (!ef && !ef_list)
           return -EINVAL;
@@ -220,76 +218,67 @@ static int
amdgpu_amdkfd_remove_eviction_fence(struct amdgpu_bo *bo,
           *ef_count = 0;
       }
   -    resv = bo->tbo.resv;
-    fobj = reservation_object_get_list(resv);
-
-    if (!fobj)
+    old = reservation_object_get_list(resv);
+    if (!old)
           return 0;
   -    preempt_disable();
-    write_seqcount_begin(&resv->seq);
+    new = kmalloc(offsetof(typeof(*new), shared[old->shared_max]),
+              GFP_KERNEL);
+    if (!new)
+        return -ENOMEM;
   -    /* Go through all the shared fences in the resevation object. If
-     * ef is specified and it exists in the list, remove it and
reduce the
-     * count. If ef is not specified, then get the count of
eviction fences
-     * present.
+    /* Go through all the shared fences in the resevation object
and sort
+     * the interesting ones to the end of the list.
        */
-    shared_count = fobj->shared_count;
-    for (i = 0; i < shared_count; ++i) {
+    for (i = 0, j = old->shared_count, k = 0; i <
old->shared_count; ++i) {
           struct dma_fence *f;
   -        f = rcu_dereference_protected(fobj->shared[i],
+        f = rcu_dereference_protected(old->shared[i],
                             reservation_object_held(resv));
   -        if (ef) {
-            if (f->context == ef->base.context) {
-                dma_fence_put(f);
-                fobj->shared_count--;
-            } else {
-                RCU_INIT_POINTER(fobj->shared[j++], f);
-            }
-        } else if (to_amdgpu_amdkfd_fence(f))
-            count++;
+        if ((ef && f->context == ef->base.context) ||
+            (!ef && to_amdgpu_amdkfd_fence(f)))
+            RCU_INIT_POINTER(new->shared[--j], f);
+        else
+            RCU_INIT_POINTER(new->shared[k++], f);
       }
-    write_seqcount_end(&resv->seq);
-    preempt_enable();
+    new->shared_max = old->shared_max;
+    new->shared_count = k;
   -    if (ef || !count)
-        return 0;
+    if (!ef) {
+        unsigned int count = old->shared_count - j;
   -    /* Alloc memory for count number of eviction fence pointers.
Fill the
-     * ef_list array and ef_count
-     */
-    fence_list = kcalloc(count, sizeof(struct amdgpu_amdkfd_fence *),
-                 GFP_KERNEL);
-    if (!fence_list)
-        return -ENOMEM;
+        /* Alloc memory for count number of eviction fence
pointers. Fill the
+         * ef_list array and ef_count
+         */
+        *ef_list = kcalloc(count, sizeof(**ef_list), GFP_KERNEL);
+        *ef_count = count;
   +        if (!*ef_list) {
+            kfree(new);
+            return -ENOMEM;
+        }
+    }
+
+    /* Install the new fence list, seqcount provides the barriers */
+    preempt_disable();
+    write_seqcount_begin(&resv->seq);
+    RCU_INIT_POINTER(resv->fence, new);
       preempt_disable();
       write_seqcount_begin(&resv->seq);
You're disabling preemption and calling write_seqcount_begin twice. I
think this is meant to be

     write_seqcount_end(&resv->seq);
     preempt_enable();


   -    j = 0;
-    for (i = 0; i < shared_count; ++i) {
+    /* Drop the references to the removed fences or move them to
ef_list */
+    for (i = j, k = 0; i < old->shared_count; ++i) {
           struct dma_fence *f;
-        struct amdgpu_amdkfd_fence *efence;
   -        f = rcu_dereference_protected(fobj->shared[i],
-            reservation_object_held(resv));
-
-        efence = to_amdgpu_amdkfd_fence(f);
-        if (efence) {
-            fence_list[k++] = efence;
-            fobj->shared_count--;
-        } else {
-            RCU_INIT_POINTER(fobj->shared[j++], f);
-        }
+        f = rcu_dereference_protected(new->shared[i],
+                          reservation_object_held(resv));
+        if (!ef)
+            (*ef_list)[k++] = to_amdgpu_amdkfd_fence(f);
+        else
+            dma_fence_put(f);
       }
-
-    write_seqcount_end(&resv->seq);
-    preempt_enable();
-
-    *ef_list = fence_list;
-    *ef_count = k;
+    kfree_rcu(old, rcu);
         return 0;
   }
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

Reply via email to