On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Susheelendra, Sushmita
<ssush...@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I can see how we can trigger the shrinker on objB while holding objA->lock.
> So, the nested lock with class SHRINKER makes sense.
> However, I’m trying to figure how the get_pages/vmap/fault path on an objA
> can end up triggering the shrinker on objA itself. As objA itself would not
> be purgeable (msm_obj->sgt would not be set)/vunmappable (msm_obj->vaddr
> would not be set) yet at that point, we would never end up calling
> msm_gem_purge or msm_gem_vunmap on objA itself right? If that is the case,
> we may not need the (msm_obj->madv == MSM_MADV_WILLNEED) check? Or am I
> missing something here?
get_pages() would set msm_obj->sgt.. I guess that is protected by
msm_obj->lock, so maybe it would be safe to drop the WILLNEED check.
Otoh, I think that does make things more clear to include the check
and a bit more future-proof.
We do check is_purgable() outside of msm_obj->lock.. I'd have to think
about it for more than a few seconds, but it seems like keeping the
WILLNEED check is a good idea.
> I think shrinker_vmap would also need the nested SHRINKER lock before it
> calls msm_gem_vunmap because a vmap on objA could trigger msm_gem_vunmap on
> objB.
hmm, right.. I guess I still need to test this w/ 32b build (where I
guess vmap shrinker is more likely), but I think you are right about
needing the nested lock in _vunmap() as well.
> I really like the idea of protecting priv->inactive_list with a separate
> lock as that is pretty much why the shrinker needs to hold struct_mutex.
yeah, rough idea is split out (probably?) spin-locks to protect the
list and madv. Then I think we could drop struct_mutex lock for
shrinker.
I think this first patch is pretty close to being ready in time to
queue up for 4.13 (which I probably need to do this weekend). We
should try and tackle the list+madv locks for 4.14, I think, since
this is already a pretty big change.
BR,
-R
> Thanks,
> Sushmita
>
> On Jun 15, 2017, at 7:20 AM, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ---
> This is roughly based on Chris's suggestion, in particular the part
> about using mutex_lock_nested(). It's not *exactly* the same, in
> particular msm_obj->lock protects a bit more than just backing store
> and we don't currently track a pin_count. (Instead we currently
> keep pages pinned until the object is purged or freed.)
>
> Instead of making msm_obj->lock only cover backing store, it is
> easier to split out madv, which is still protected by struct_mutex,
> which is still held by the shrinker, so the shrinker does not need
> to grab msm_obj->lock until it purges an object. We avoid going
> down any path that could trigger shrinker by ensuring that
> msm_obj->madv == WILLNEED. To synchronize access to msm_obj->madv
> it is protected by msm_obj->lock inside struct_mutex.
>
> This seems to keep lockdep happy in my testing so far.
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c | 54
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h | 1 +
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c | 12 ++++++++
> 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c
> index e132548..f5d1f84 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,22 @@
> #include "msm_gpu.h"
> #include "msm_mmu.h"
>
> +/* The shrinker can be triggered while we hold objA->lock, and need
> + * to grab objB->lock to purge it. Lockdep just sees these as a single
> + * class of lock, so we use subclasses to teach it the difference.
> + *
> + * OBJ_LOCK_NORMAL is implicit (ie. normal mutex_lock() call), and
> + * OBJ_LOCK_SHRINKER is used in msm_gem_purge().
> + *
> + * It is *essential* that we never go down paths that could trigger the
> + * shrinker for a purgable object. This is ensured by checking that
> + * msm_obj->madv == MSM_MADV_WILLNEED.
> + */
> +enum {
> + OBJ_LOCK_NORMAL,
> + OBJ_LOCK_SHRINKER,
> +};
> +
> static dma_addr_t physaddr(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> {
> struct msm_gem_object *msm_obj = to_msm_bo(obj);
> @@ -150,6 +166,12 @@ struct page **msm_gem_get_pages(struct drm_gem_object
> *obj)
> struct page **p;
>
> mutex_lock(&msm_obj->lock);
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(msm_obj->madv != MSM_MADV_WILLNEED)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&msm_obj->lock);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> + }
> +
> p = get_pages(obj);
> mutex_unlock(&msm_obj->lock);
> return p;
> @@ -220,6 +242,11 @@ int msm_gem_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> if (ret)
> goto out;
>
> + if (WARN_ON(msm_obj->madv != MSM_MADV_WILLNEED)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&msm_obj->lock);
> + return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
> + }
> +
> /* make sure we have pages attached now */
> pages = get_pages(obj);
> if (IS_ERR(pages)) {
> @@ -358,6 +385,11 @@ int msm_gem_get_iova(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
>
> mutex_lock(&msm_obj->lock);
>
> + if (WARN_ON(msm_obj->madv != MSM_MADV_WILLNEED)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&msm_obj->lock);
> + return -EBUSY;
> + }
> +
> vma = lookup_vma(obj, aspace);
>
> if (!vma) {
> @@ -454,6 +486,12 @@ void *msm_gem_get_vaddr(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> struct msm_gem_object *msm_obj = to_msm_bo(obj);
>
> mutex_lock(&msm_obj->lock);
> +
> + if (WARN_ON(msm_obj->madv != MSM_MADV_WILLNEED)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&msm_obj->lock);
> + return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> + }
> +
> if (!msm_obj->vaddr) {
> struct page **pages = get_pages(obj);
> if (IS_ERR(pages)) {
> @@ -489,12 +527,18 @@ int msm_gem_madvise(struct drm_gem_object *obj,
> unsigned madv)
> {
> struct msm_gem_object *msm_obj = to_msm_bo(obj);
>
> + mutex_lock(&msm_obj->lock);
> +
> WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&obj->dev->struct_mutex));
>
> if (msm_obj->madv != __MSM_MADV_PURGED)
> msm_obj->madv = madv;
>
> - return (msm_obj->madv != __MSM_MADV_PURGED);
> + madv = msm_obj->madv;
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&msm_obj->lock);
> +
> + return (madv != __MSM_MADV_PURGED);
> }
>
> void msm_gem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> @@ -506,6 +550,8 @@ void msm_gem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> WARN_ON(!is_purgeable(msm_obj));
> WARN_ON(obj->import_attach);
>
> + mutex_lock_nested(&msm_obj->lock, OBJ_LOCK_SHRINKER);
> +
> put_iova(obj);
>
> msm_gem_vunmap(obj);
> @@ -526,6 +572,8 @@ void msm_gem_purge(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
>
> invalidate_mapping_pages(file_inode(obj->filp)->i_mapping,
> 0, (loff_t)-1);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&msm_obj->lock);
> }
>
> void msm_gem_vunmap(struct drm_gem_object *obj)
> @@ -660,7 +708,7 @@ void msm_gem_describe(struct drm_gem_object *obj, struct
> seq_file *m)
> uint64_t off = drm_vma_node_start(&obj->vma_node);
> const char *madv;
>
> - WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&obj->dev->struct_mutex));
> + mutex_lock(&msm_obj->lock);
>
> switch (msm_obj->madv) {
> case __MSM_MADV_PURGED:
> @@ -701,6 +749,8 @@ void msm_gem_describe(struct drm_gem_object *obj, struct
> seq_file *m)
> if (fence)
> describe_fence(fence, "Exclusive", m);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&msm_obj->lock);
> }
>
> void msm_gem_describe_objects(struct list_head *list, struct seq_file *m)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h
> index 9ad5ba4c..2b9b8e9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem.h
> @@ -101,6 +101,7 @@ static inline bool is_active(struct msm_gem_object
> *msm_obj)
>
> static inline bool is_purgeable(struct msm_gem_object *msm_obj)
> {
> + WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&msm_obj->base.dev->struct_mutex));
> return (msm_obj->madv == MSM_MADV_DONTNEED) && msm_obj->sgt &&
> !msm_obj->base.dma_buf && !msm_obj->base.import_attach;
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c
> index ab1dd02..e1db4ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_shrinker.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,18 @@
>
> static bool msm_gem_shrinker_lock(struct drm_device *dev, bool *unlock)
> {
> + /* NOTE: we are *closer* to being able to get rid of
> + * mutex_trylock_recursive().. the msm_gem code itself does
> + * not need struct_mutex, although codepaths that can trigger
> + * shrinker are still called in code-paths that hold the
> + * struct_mutex.
> + *
> + * Also, msm_obj->madv is protected by struct_mutex.
> + *
> + * The next step is probably split out a seperate lock for
> + * protecting inactive_list, so that shrinker does not need
> + * struct_mutex.
> + */
> switch (mutex_trylock_recursive(&dev->struct_mutex)) {
> case MUTEX_TRYLOCK_FAILED:
> return false;
> --
> 2.9.4
>
>
_______________________________________________
Freedreno mailing list
Freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/freedreno
