Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
Am 28.05.21 um 16:17 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On 5/28/21 4:10 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 28.05.21 um 09:33 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 09:16 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 17:51 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:32 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 17:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers
without
having
the
dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out
unpopulated
bos.
Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have
the
reservation
lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the
swap_notify
callback.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16
+++-
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx,
,
, NULL))
return -EBUSY;
+ dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
+
+ if (!bo->ttm ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED)
{
+ if (locked)
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
@@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
- ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
gfp_flags);
+ if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
+ ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
gfp_flags);
Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to
swap
out
the
same BO over and over again with that.
But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never
re-
added,
In fact, we'd probably might want to take the !bo->ttm bos off
the
LRU
as well..
No, we don't want to take any BOs of the LRU unless they are
pinned.
Adding a TT object or populating it doesn't necessarily put the
BO
back
to the LRU.
OK, but swapped bos are also taken off the LRU list so these
unpopulated bos are just taking the same path. Only difference to
swapped is that they don't get read back on re-populate, but
typically
cleared.
But what would be the point of keeping swapped-out bos on the LRU
list?, particularly when we're iterating under a spinlock?
Shouldn't we try to re-add to LRU (if not already on an LRU) just
before populating? There aren't really that many calls in core TTM.
I want to avoid removing BOs from the LRU as much as possible since
we
forgot on multiple places that we want to re-add them.
Conceptual I think the swapped BOs should have a separate memory
domain,
this way we can ignore them cleanly when swapping things out.
Yes, that would of course work as well. Keeping them on the system LRU
is IMO highly undesirable.
Going to pick this patch up, modifying it a bit more and then pushing
it
to drm-misc-fixes for upstreaming.
OK, I dropped the TTM fix for the purge-in-swap-notify from the i915
series, hoping that the reworked variant of this patch lands first.
You will still need to add the second ttm_tt_populated() check since
I dropped that for the back which I want to push to -fixes.
Regards,
Christian.
OK, great. then you have my S-O-B on this patch.
BTW that original patch that added the ttm_tt_is_populated() was
considered "LGTM" by you, except for this ttm_tt_is_populated(). So do
I have an Acked-by: on that now?
That is
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatchwork.freedesktop.org%2Fpatch%2F435833%2F%3Fseries%3D90681%26rev%3D2data=04%7C01%7Cchristian.koenig%40amd.com%7C4580ac1413cb414888a008d921e35e49%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637578082688432837%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000sdata=VHROKh319e5jJL9grI31fLnA3ByJpEuML3PoJB7T2Lg%3Dreserved=0
plus the check added?
Yeah, sure.
Christian.
Thanks,
Thomas
Thanks,
Thomas
Thanks,
Christian.
/Thomas
Christian.
/Thomas
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
On 5/28/21 4:10 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 28.05.21 um 09:33 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 09:16 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 17:51 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:32 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 17:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers
without
having
the
dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out
unpopulated
bos.
Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have
the
reservation
lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the
swap_notify
callback.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16
+++-
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx,
,
, NULL))
return -EBUSY;
+ dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
+
+ if (!bo->ttm ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED)
{
+ if (locked)
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
@@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
- ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
gfp_flags);
+ if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
+ ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
gfp_flags);
Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to
swap
out
the
same BO over and over again with that.
But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never
re-
added,
In fact, we'd probably might want to take the !bo->ttm bos off
the
LRU
as well..
No, we don't want to take any BOs of the LRU unless they are
pinned.
Adding a TT object or populating it doesn't necessarily put the
BO
back
to the LRU.
OK, but swapped bos are also taken off the LRU list so these
unpopulated bos are just taking the same path. Only difference to
swapped is that they don't get read back on re-populate, but
typically
cleared.
But what would be the point of keeping swapped-out bos on the LRU
list?, particularly when we're iterating under a spinlock?
Shouldn't we try to re-add to LRU (if not already on an LRU) just
before populating? There aren't really that many calls in core TTM.
I want to avoid removing BOs from the LRU as much as possible since
we
forgot on multiple places that we want to re-add them.
Conceptual I think the swapped BOs should have a separate memory
domain,
this way we can ignore them cleanly when swapping things out.
Yes, that would of course work as well. Keeping them on the system LRU
is IMO highly undesirable.
Going to pick this patch up, modifying it a bit more and then pushing
it
to drm-misc-fixes for upstreaming.
OK, I dropped the TTM fix for the purge-in-swap-notify from the i915
series, hoping that the reworked variant of this patch lands first.
You will still need to add the second ttm_tt_populated() check since I
dropped that for the back which I want to push to -fixes.
Regards,
Christian.
OK, great. then you have my S-O-B on this patch.
BTW that original patch that added the ttm_tt_is_populated() was
considered "LGTM" by you, except for this ttm_tt_is_populated(). So do I
have an Acked-by: on that now?
That is
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/435833/?series=90681=2
plus the check added?
Thanks,
Thomas
Thanks,
Thomas
Thanks,
Christian.
/Thomas
Christian.
/Thomas
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
Am 28.05.21 um 09:33 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 09:16 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 17:51 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:32 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 17:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers
without
having
the
dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out
unpopulated
bos.
Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have
the
reservation
lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the
swap_notify
callback.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16
+++-
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx,
,
, NULL))
return -EBUSY;
+ dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
+
+ if (!bo->ttm ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED)
{
+ if (locked)
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
@@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
- ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
gfp_flags);
+ if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
+ ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
gfp_flags);
Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to
swap
out
the
same BO over and over again with that.
But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never
re-
added,
In fact, we'd probably might want to take the !bo->ttm bos off
the
LRU
as well..
No, we don't want to take any BOs of the LRU unless they are
pinned.
Adding a TT object or populating it doesn't necessarily put the
BO
back
to the LRU.
OK, but swapped bos are also taken off the LRU list so these
unpopulated bos are just taking the same path. Only difference to
swapped is that they don't get read back on re-populate, but
typically
cleared.
But what would be the point of keeping swapped-out bos on the LRU
list?, particularly when we're iterating under a spinlock?
Shouldn't we try to re-add to LRU (if not already on an LRU) just
before populating? There aren't really that many calls in core TTM.
I want to avoid removing BOs from the LRU as much as possible since
we
forgot on multiple places that we want to re-add them.
Conceptual I think the swapped BOs should have a separate memory
domain,
this way we can ignore them cleanly when swapping things out.
Yes, that would of course work as well. Keeping them on the system LRU
is IMO highly undesirable.
Going to pick this patch up, modifying it a bit more and then pushing
it
to drm-misc-fixes for upstreaming.
OK, I dropped the TTM fix for the purge-in-swap-notify from the i915
series, hoping that the reworked variant of this patch lands first.
You will still need to add the second ttm_tt_populated() check since I
dropped that for the back which I want to push to -fixes.
Regards,
Christian.
Thanks,
Thomas
Thanks,
Christian.
/Thomas
Christian.
/Thomas
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
On Fri, 2021-05-28 at 09:16 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 27.05.21 um 17:51 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:32 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > Am 27.05.21 um 17:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > > > On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > > > > Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > > > > > > The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > having
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out
> > > > > > > unpopulated
> > > > > > > bos.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > reservation
> > > > > > > lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the
> > > > > > > swap_notify
> > > > > > > callback.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16
> > > > > > > +++-
> > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
> > > > > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > > > > index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
> > > > > > > ttm_buffer_object
> > > > > > > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > > > > > if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx,
> > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > , NULL))
> > > > > > > return -EBUSY;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + if (!bo->ttm ||
> > > > > > > + bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
> > > > > > > + bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > + if (locked)
> > > > > > > + dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > > > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
> > > > > > > if (locked)
> > > > > > > dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > > > > @@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
> > > > > > > ttm_buffer_object
> > > > > > > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > > > > > if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
> > > > > > > bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
> > > > > > > gfp_flags);
> > > > > > > + if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
> > > > > > > + ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
> > > > > > > gfp_flags);
> > > > > > Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to
> > > > > > swap
> > > > > > out
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > same BO over and over again with that.
> > > > > But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never
> > > > > re-
> > > > > added,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > In fact, we'd probably might want to take the !bo->ttm bos off
> > > > the
> > > > LRU
> > > > as well..
> > > No, we don't want to take any BOs of the LRU unless they are
> > > pinned.
> > >
> > > Adding a TT object or populating it doesn't necessarily put the
> > > BO
> > > back
> > > to the LRU.
> > OK, but swapped bos are also taken off the LRU list so these
> > unpopulated bos are just taking the same path. Only difference to
> > swapped is that they don't get read back on re-populate, but
> > typically
> > cleared.
> >
> > But what would be the point of keeping swapped-out bos on the LRU
> > list?, particularly when we're iterating under a spinlock?
> > Shouldn't we try to re-add to LRU (if not already on an LRU) just
> > before populating? There aren't really that many calls in core TTM.
>
> I want to avoid removing BOs from the LRU as much as possible since
> we
> forgot on multiple places that we want to re-add them.
>
> Conceptual I think the swapped BOs should have a separate memory
> domain,
> this way we can ignore them cleanly when swapping things out.
Yes, that would of course work as well. Keeping them on the system LRU
is IMO highly undesirable.
>
> Going to pick this patch up, modifying it a bit more and then pushing
> it
> to drm-misc-fixes for upstreaming.
OK, I dropped the TTM fix for the purge-in-swap-notify from the i915
series, hoping that the reworked variant of this patch lands first.
Thanks,
Thomas
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>
> >
> > /Thomas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Christian.
> > >
> > > > /Thomas
> > > >
> >
>
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
Am 27.05.21 um 17:51 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:32 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 17:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers without
having
the
dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out unpopulated
bos.
Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have the
reservation
lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the
swap_notify
callback.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16 +++-
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, ,
, NULL))
return -EBUSY;
+ dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
+
+ if (!bo->ttm ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED) {
+ if (locked)
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
@@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
- ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
+ if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
+ ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
gfp_flags);
Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to swap
out
the
same BO over and over again with that.
But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never re-
added,
In fact, we'd probably might want to take the !bo->ttm bos off the
LRU
as well..
No, we don't want to take any BOs of the LRU unless they are pinned.
Adding a TT object or populating it doesn't necessarily put the BO
back
to the LRU.
OK, but swapped bos are also taken off the LRU list so these
unpopulated bos are just taking the same path. Only difference to
swapped is that they don't get read back on re-populate, but typically
cleared.
But what would be the point of keeping swapped-out bos on the LRU
list?, particularly when we're iterating under a spinlock?
Shouldn't we try to re-add to LRU (if not already on an LRU) just
before populating? There aren't really that many calls in core TTM.
I want to avoid removing BOs from the LRU as much as possible since we
forgot on multiple places that we want to re-add them.
Conceptual I think the swapped BOs should have a separate memory domain,
this way we can ignore them cleanly when swapping things out.
Going to pick this patch up, modifying it a bit more and then pushing it
to drm-misc-fixes for upstreaming.
Thanks,
Christian.
/Thomas
Christian.
/Thomas
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:32 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 27.05.21 um 17:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > > > Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > > > > The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers without
> > > > > having
> > > > > the
> > > > > dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out unpopulated
> > > > > bos.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have the
> > > > > reservation
> > > > > lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the
> > > > > swap_notify
> > > > > callback.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16 +++-
> > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
> > > > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > > index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > > > @@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
> > > > > ttm_buffer_object
> > > > > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > > > if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, ,
> > > > > , NULL))
> > > > > return -EBUSY;
> > > > >
> > > > > + dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!bo->ttm ||
> > > > > + bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
> > > > > + bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED) {
> > > > > + if (locked)
> > > > > + dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
> > > > > if (locked)
> > > > > dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > > > @@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
> > > > > ttm_buffer_object
> > > > > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > > > if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
> > > > > bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
> > > > >
> > > > > - ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
> > > > > + if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
> > > > > + ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
> > > > > gfp_flags);
> > > > Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to swap
> > > > out
> > > > the
> > > > same BO over and over again with that.
> > > But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never re-
> > > added,
> > >
> > >
> > In fact, we'd probably might want to take the !bo->ttm bos off the
> > LRU
> > as well..
>
> No, we don't want to take any BOs of the LRU unless they are pinned.
>
> Adding a TT object or populating it doesn't necessarily put the BO
> back
> to the LRU.
OK, but swapped bos are also taken off the LRU list so these
unpopulated bos are just taking the same path. Only difference to
swapped is that they don't get read back on re-populate, but typically
cleared.
But what would be the point of keeping swapped-out bos on the LRU
list?, particularly when we're iterating under a spinlock?
Shouldn't we try to re-add to LRU (if not already on an LRU) just
before populating? There aren't really that many calls in core TTM.
/Thomas
>
> Christian.
>
> >
> > /Thomas
> >
>
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
Am 27.05.21 um 17:05 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers without having
the
dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out unpopulated
bos.
Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have the
reservation
lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the swap_notify
callback.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16 +++-
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, ,
, NULL))
return -EBUSY;
+ dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
+
+ if (!bo->ttm ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED) {
+ if (locked)
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
@@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
- ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
+ if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
+ ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
gfp_flags);
Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to swap out
the
same BO over and over again with that.
But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never re-added,
In fact, we'd probably might want to take the !bo->ttm bos off the LRU
as well..
No, we don't want to take any BOs of the LRU unless they are pinned.
Adding a TT object or populating it doesn't necessarily put the BO back
to the LRU.
Christian.
/Thomas
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
Am 27.05.21 um 17:01 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers without having
the
dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out unpopulated bos.
Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have the
reservation
lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the swap_notify
callback.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16 +++-
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, ,
, NULL))
return -EBUSY;
+ dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
+
+ if (!bo->ttm ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED) {
+ if (locked)
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
@@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
- ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
+ if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
+ ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to swap out the
same BO over and over again with that.
But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never re-added,
Well then that would be a bug in itself.
Why not move that to the check above as well?
Because the BO may become unpopulated in swap_notify(), i915, like
vmwgfx, sometimes sets up gpu bindings from system, and when we get a
notification from user-space that those are purgeable, we don't want to
purge immediately but wait for a potential swapout.
Uff, good point. But then we need to check that at both locations I think.
Because populating the TT object currently doesn't put the BO back on
the LRU eventually.
Christian.
/Thomas
Christian.
out:
/*
@@ -1225,6 +1236,9 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object
*bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
ttm_bo_put(bo);
+
+ /* Don't break locking rules. */
+ WARN_ON(ret == -EBUSY);
return ret;
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
index 460953dcad11..eaa7487ae404 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
@@ -143,14 +143,12 @@ int ttm_device_swapout(struct ttm_device
*bdev, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
for (j = 0; j < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++j) {
list_for_each_entry(bo, >lru[j], lru)
{
- uint32_t num_pages;
+ pgoff_t num_pages;
- if (!bo->ttm ||
- bo->ttm->page_flags &
TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
- bo->ttm->page_flags &
TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED)
+ if (!READ_ONCE(bo->ttm))
continue;
- num_pages = bo->ttm->num_pages;
+ num_pages = bo->base.size >>
PAGE_SHIFT;
ret = ttm_bo_swapout(bo, ctx,
gfp_flags);
/* ttm_bo_swapout has dropped the
lru_lock */
if (!ret)
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Hellström wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > > The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers without having
> > > the
> > > dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out unpopulated
> > > bos.
> > >
> > > Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have the
> > > reservation
> > > lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the swap_notify
> > > callback.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
> > >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16 +++-
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
> > > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > > @@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct
> > > ttm_buffer_object
> > > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, ,
> > > , NULL))
> > > return -EBUSY;
> > >
> > > + dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
> > > +
> > > + if (!bo->ttm ||
> > > + bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
> > > + bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED) {
> > > + if (locked)
> > > + dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > + return -EBUSY;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
> > > if (locked)
> > > dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > > @@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object
> > > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > > if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
> > > bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
> > >
> > > - ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
> > > + if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
> > > + ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm,
> > > gfp_flags);
> >
> > Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to swap out
> > the
> > same BO over and over again with that.
>
> But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never re-added,
>
>
In fact, we'd probably might want to take the !bo->ttm bos off the LRU
as well..
/Thomas
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 16:54 +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
> > The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers without having
> > the
> > dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out unpopulated bos.
> >
> > Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have the
> > reservation
> > lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the swap_notify
> > callback.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16 +++-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
> > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
> > @@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object
> > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, ,
> > , NULL))
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > + dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
> > +
> > + if (!bo->ttm ||
> > + bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
> > + bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED) {
> > + if (locked)
> > + dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
> > +
> > if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
> > if (locked)
> > dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > @@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object
> > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
> > bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
> >
> > - ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
> > + if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
> > + ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
>
> Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to swap out the
> same BO over and over again with that.
But we wouldn't since the BO is taken off the LRU and never re-added,
>
> Why not move that to the check above as well?
Because the BO may become unpopulated in swap_notify(), i915, like
vmwgfx, sometimes sets up gpu bindings from system, and when we get a
notification from user-space that those are purgeable, we don't want to
purge immediately but wait for a potential swapout.
/Thomas
>
> Christian.
>
> > out:
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -1225,6 +1236,9 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object
> > *bo, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> > if (locked)
> > dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
> > ttm_bo_put(bo);
> > +
> > + /* Don't break locking rules. */
> > + WARN_ON(ret == -EBUSY);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
> > index 460953dcad11..eaa7487ae404 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
> > @@ -143,14 +143,12 @@ int ttm_device_swapout(struct ttm_device
> > *bdev, struct ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
> >
> > for (j = 0; j < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++j) {
> > list_for_each_entry(bo, >lru[j], lru)
> > {
> > - uint32_t num_pages;
> > + pgoff_t num_pages;
> >
> > - if (!bo->ttm ||
> > - bo->ttm->page_flags &
> > TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
> > - bo->ttm->page_flags &
> > TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED)
> > + if (!READ_ONCE(bo->ttm))
> > continue;
> >
> > - num_pages = bo->ttm->num_pages;
> > + num_pages = bo->base.size >>
> > PAGE_SHIFT;
> > ret = ttm_bo_swapout(bo, ctx,
> > gfp_flags);
> > /* ttm_bo_swapout has dropped the
> > lru_lock */
> > if (!ret)
>
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
Am 27.05.21 um 16:19 schrieb Thomas Hellström:
The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers without having the
dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out unpopulated bos.
Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have the reservation
lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the swap_notify callback.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16 +++-
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, , , NULL))
return -EBUSY;
+ dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
+
+ if (!bo->ttm ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED) {
+ if (locked)
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
@@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
- ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
+ if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
+ ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
Exactly that is what I won't recommend. We would try to swap out the
same BO over and over again with that.
Why not move that to the check above as well?
Christian.
out:
/*
@@ -1225,6 +1236,9 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
ttm_bo_put(bo);
+
+ /* Don't break locking rules. */
+ WARN_ON(ret == -EBUSY);
return ret;
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
index 460953dcad11..eaa7487ae404 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
@@ -143,14 +143,12 @@ int ttm_device_swapout(struct ttm_device *bdev, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
for (j = 0; j < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++j) {
list_for_each_entry(bo, >lru[j], lru) {
- uint32_t num_pages;
+ pgoff_t num_pages;
-if (!bo->ttm ||
- bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
- bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED)
+ if (!READ_ONCE(bo->ttm))
continue;
-num_pages = bo->ttm->num_pages;
+ num_pages = bo->base.size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
ret = ttm_bo_swapout(bo, ctx, gfp_flags);
/* ttm_bo_swapout has dropped the lru_lock */
if (!ret)
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
[Intel-gfx] [RFC PATCH] drm/ttm: Fix swapping dereferences of freed memory
The swapping code was dereference bo->ttm pointers without having the
dma-resv lock held. Also it might try to swap out unpopulated bos.
Fix this by moving the bo->ttm dereference until we have the reservation
lock. Check that the ttm_tt is populated after the swap_notify callback.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Hellström
---
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 16 +++-
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c | 8 +++-
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index 9f53506a82fc..86213d37657b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1163,6 +1163,16 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (!ttm_bo_evict_swapout_allowable(bo, ctx, , , NULL))
return -EBUSY;
+ dma_resv_assert_held(bo->base.resv);
+
+ if (!bo->ttm ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
+ bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED) {
+ if (locked)
+ dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
+ return -EBUSY;
+ }
+
if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
@@ -1215,7 +1225,8 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify)
bo->bdev->funcs->swap_notify(bo);
- ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
+ if (ttm_tt_is_populated(bo->ttm))
+ ret = ttm_tt_swapout(bo->bdev, bo->ttm, gfp_flags);
out:
/*
@@ -1225,6 +1236,9 @@ int ttm_bo_swapout(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
if (locked)
dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
ttm_bo_put(bo);
+
+ /* Don't break locking rules. */
+ WARN_ON(ret == -EBUSY);
return ret;
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
index 460953dcad11..eaa7487ae404 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_device.c
@@ -143,14 +143,12 @@ int ttm_device_swapout(struct ttm_device *bdev, struct
ttm_operation_ctx *ctx,
for (j = 0; j < TTM_MAX_BO_PRIORITY; ++j) {
list_for_each_entry(bo, >lru[j], lru) {
- uint32_t num_pages;
+ pgoff_t num_pages;
- if (!bo->ttm ||
- bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SG ||
- bo->ttm->page_flags & TTM_PAGE_FLAG_SWAPPED)
+ if (!READ_ONCE(bo->ttm))
continue;
- num_pages = bo->ttm->num_pages;
+ num_pages = bo->base.size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
ret = ttm_bo_swapout(bo, ctx, gfp_flags);
/* ttm_bo_swapout has dropped the lru_lock */
if (!ret)
--
2.31.1
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
