[Public]
Regards,
Prike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Deucher <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2025 10:10 PM
> To: Liang, Prike <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; Deucher, Alexander
> <[email protected]>; Koenig, Christian <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] drm/amdgpu: validate userq va for GEM unmap
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 2:04 AM Prike Liang <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > When an user unmaps a userq VA, the driver must ensure the queue has
> > no in-flight jobs. If there is pending work, the kernel should wait
> > for the attached eviction (bookkeeping) fence to signal before
> > deleting the mapping.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Christian König <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Prike Liang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c | 29
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h |
> 3 +++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 11 +++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c
> > index a13f186f0a8a..e14dcdcfe36e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.c
> > @@ -1182,3 +1182,32 @@ int
> amdgpu_userq_start_sched_for_enforce_isolation(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> > mutex_unlock(&adev->userq_mutex);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > +
> > +int amdgpu_userq_gem_va_unmap_validate(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> > + struct amdgpu_bo_va_mapping *mapping,
> > + uint64_t saddr) {
> > + u32 ip_mask = amdgpu_userq_get_supported_ip_mask(adev);
> > + struct amdgpu_bo_va *bo_va = mapping->bo_va;
> > + struct dma_resv *resv = bo_va->base.bo->tbo.base.resv;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + if (!ip_mask)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + dev_warn(adev->dev, "now unmapping a vital queue va:%llx\n",
> > + saddr);
>
> dev_warn_once() so we don't spam the logs.
It seems unlikely to run into this case, but I'm okay to change this to
dev_warn_once() or dev_warn_ratelimited().
>
> > + /**
> > + * The userq VA mapping reservation should include the eviction
> > fence, if the
> eviction fence
> > + * can't signal successfully during unmapping, then driver will
> > warn to flag
> this improper unmap
> > + * of the userq VA.
> > + * Note: The eviction fence may be attached to different BOs, and
> > this unmap
> is only for one kind
> > + * of userq VAs, so at this point suppose the eviction fence is
> > always
> unsignaled.
> > + */
> > + if (!dma_resv_test_signaled(resv, DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP)) {
> > + ret = dma_resv_wait_timeout(resv, DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP,
> true, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT);
> > + if (ret <= 0)
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h
> > index 8cd307be7256..c9a41876f10e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_userq.h
> > @@ -157,4 +157,7 @@ int amdgpu_userq_buffer_va_put(struct amdgpu_vm
> > *vm, u64 addr); int amdgpu_userq_buffer_vas_put(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> > struct amdgpu_usermode_queue *queue);
> > bool amdgpu_userq_buffer_vas_mapped(struct amdgpu_usermode_queue
> > *queue);
> > +int amdgpu_userq_gem_va_unmap_validate(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
> > + struct amdgpu_bo_va_mapping *mapping,
> > + uint64_t saddr);
> > #endif
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> > index bd12d8ff15a4..ccde1f040cef 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
> > @@ -1941,6 +1941,7 @@ int amdgpu_vm_bo_unmap(struct amdgpu_device
> *adev,
> > struct amdgpu_bo_va_mapping *mapping;
> > struct amdgpu_vm *vm = bo_va->base.vm;
> > bool valid = true;
> > + int r;
> >
> > saddr /= AMDGPU_GPU_PAGE_SIZE;
> >
> > @@ -1961,6 +1962,16 @@ int amdgpu_vm_bo_unmap(struct amdgpu_device
> *adev,
> > return -ENOENT;
> > }
> >
> > + /* It's unlikely to happen that the mapping userq hasn't been idled
> > + * during user requests GEM unmap IOCTL except for forcing the unmap
> > + * from user space.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(atomic_read(&bo_va->userq_va_mapped) > 0)) {
> > + r = amdgpu_userq_gem_va_unmap_validate(adev, mapping,
> > saddr);
> > + if (unlikely(r == -EBUSY))
> > + dev_warn(adev->dev, "Here should be an
> > + improper unmap request from user space\n");
>
> dev_warn_once().
>
> This looks good to me, but it would be good to get Christian's input as well.
>
> Alex
>
> > + }
> > +
> > list_del(&mapping->list);
> > amdgpu_vm_it_remove(mapping, &vm->va);
> > mapping->bo_va = NULL;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
