4.14-rc1 gained the fancy new cross-release support in lockdep, which
seems to have uncovered a few more rules about what is allowed and
isn't.

This one here seems to indicate that allocating a work-queue while
holding mmap_sem is a no-go, so let's try to preallocate it.

Of course another way to break this chain would be somewhere in the
cpu hotplug code, since this isn't the only trace we're finding now
which goes through msr_create_device.

Full lockdep splat:

======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.14.0-rc3-CI-CI_DRM_3179+ #1 Tainted: G     U
------------------------------------------------------
kworker/3:4/562 is trying to acquire lock:
 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: [<ffffffff8113d4bc>] 
stop_machine+0x1c/0x40

but task is already holding lock:
 (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0136588>] 
i915_reset_device+0x1e8/0x260 [i915]

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #6 (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}:
       __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
       lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
       __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
       mutex_lock_interruptible_nested+0x1b/0x20
       i915_mutex_lock_interruptible+0x51/0x130 [i915]
       i915_gem_fault+0x209/0x650 [i915]
       __do_fault+0x1e/0x80
       __handle_mm_fault+0xa08/0xed0
       handle_mm_fault+0x156/0x300
       __do_page_fault+0x2c5/0x570
       do_page_fault+0x28/0x250
       page_fault+0x22/0x30

-> #5 (&mm->mmap_sem){++++}:
       __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
       lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
       __might_fault+0x68/0x90
       _copy_to_user+0x23/0x70
       filldir+0xa5/0x120
       dcache_readdir+0xf9/0x170
       iterate_dir+0x69/0x1a0
       SyS_getdents+0xa5/0x140
       entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1

-> #4 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5){++++}:
       down_write+0x3b/0x70
       handle_create+0xcb/0x1e0
       devtmpfsd+0x139/0x180
       kthread+0x152/0x190
       ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40

-> #3 ((complete)&req.done){+.+.}:
       __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
       lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
       wait_for_common+0x58/0x210
       wait_for_completion+0x1d/0x20
       devtmpfs_create_node+0x13d/0x160
       device_add+0x5eb/0x620
       device_create_groups_vargs+0xe0/0xf0
       device_create+0x3a/0x40
       msr_device_create+0x2b/0x40
       cpuhp_invoke_callback+0xc9/0xbf0
       cpuhp_thread_fun+0x17b/0x240
       smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
       kthread+0x152/0x190
       ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40

-> #2 (cpuhp_state-up){+.+.}:
       __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
       lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
       cpuhp_issue_call+0x133/0x1c0
       __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x139/0x2a0
       __cpuhp_setup_state+0x46/0x60
       page_writeback_init+0x43/0x67
       pagecache_init+0x3d/0x42
       start_kernel+0x3a8/0x3fc
       x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
       x86_64_start_kernel+0x6d/0x70
       verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb

-> #1 (cpuhp_state_mutex){+.+.}:
       __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
       lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
       __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
       mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
       __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x53/0x2a0
       __cpuhp_setup_state+0x46/0x60
       page_alloc_init+0x28/0x30
       start_kernel+0x145/0x3fc
       x86_64_start_reservations+0x2a/0x2c
       x86_64_start_kernel+0x6d/0x70
       verify_cpu+0x0/0xfb

-> #0 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}:
       check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
       __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
       lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
       cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
       stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
       i915_gem_set_wedged+0x1a/0x20 [i915]
       i915_reset+0xb9/0x230 [i915]
       i915_reset_device+0x1f6/0x260 [i915]
       i915_handle_error+0x2d8/0x430 [i915]
       hangcheck_declare_hang+0xd3/0xf0 [i915]
       i915_hangcheck_elapsed+0x262/0x2d0 [i915]
       process_one_work+0x233/0x660
       worker_thread+0x4e/0x3b0
       kthread+0x152/0x190
       ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
  cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev->struct_mutex

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

       CPU0                    CPU1
       ----                    ----
  lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
                               lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
                               lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
  lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

3 locks held by kworker/3:4/562:
 #0:  ("events_long"){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff8109c64a>] 
process_one_work+0x1aa/0x660
 #1:  ((&(&i915->gpu_error.hangcheck_work)->work)){+.+.}, at: 
[<ffffffff8109c64a>] process_one_work+0x1aa/0x660
 #2:  (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0136588>] 
i915_reset_device+0x1e8/0x260 [i915]

stack backtrace:
CPU: 3 PID: 562 Comm: kworker/3:4 Tainted: G     U          
4.14.0-rc3-CI-CI_DRM_3179+ #1
Hardware name:                  /NUC7i5BNB, BIOS 
BNKBL357.86A.0048.2017.0704.1415 07/04/2017
Workqueue: events_long i915_hangcheck_elapsed [i915]
Call Trace:
 dump_stack+0x68/0x9f
 print_circular_bug+0x235/0x3c0
 ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
 check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
 ? irq_work_queue+0x86/0xe0
 ? wake_up_klogd+0x53/0x70
 __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
 ? __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
 ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
 lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
 ? stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
 ? i915_gem_object_truncate+0x50/0x50 [i915]
 cpus_read_lock+0x3d/0xb0
 ? stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
 stop_machine+0x1c/0x40
 i915_gem_set_wedged+0x1a/0x20 [i915]
 i915_reset+0xb9/0x230 [i915]
 i915_reset_device+0x1f6/0x260 [i915]
 ? gen8_gt_irq_ack+0x170/0x170 [i915]
 ? work_on_cpu_safe+0x60/0x60
 i915_handle_error+0x2d8/0x430 [i915]
 ? vsnprintf+0xd1/0x4b0
 ? scnprintf+0x3a/0x70
 hangcheck_declare_hang+0xd3/0xf0 [i915]
 ? intel_runtime_pm_put+0x56/0xa0 [i915]
 i915_hangcheck_elapsed+0x262/0x2d0 [i915]
 process_one_work+0x233/0x660
 worker_thread+0x4e/0x3b0
 kthread+0x152/0x190
 ? process_one_work+0x660/0x660
 ? kthread_create_on_node+0x40/0x40
 ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
Setting dangerous option reset - tainting kernel
i915 0000:00:02.0: Resetting chip after gpu hang
Setting dangerous option reset - tainting kernel
i915 0000:00:02.0: Resetting chip after gpu hang

Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahti...@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@verizon.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@intel.com>

--

Patch itself pretty much untested, I just want to figure out whether
we should fix this (and similar backtraces going through
msr_create_device) in i915, or whether the cpu hotplug folks will take
care of them all.

Afaict this is not because of changes in 4.14-rc1, but really only due
to the new cross-release checks.

Note that the above trace is on top of -rc3 (plus plenty of drm/i915
stuff), so should have Peter's recent lockdep fixes for cpu up vs.
down already.
-Daniel
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c | 65 +++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
index 2d4996de7331..afe166921572 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
@@ -160,36 +160,6 @@ static const struct mmu_notifier_ops 
i915_gem_userptr_notifier = {
        .invalidate_range_start = i915_gem_userptr_mn_invalidate_range_start,
 };
 
-static struct i915_mmu_notifier *
-i915_mmu_notifier_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
-{
-       struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn;
-       int ret;
-
-       mn = kmalloc(sizeof(*mn), GFP_KERNEL);
-       if (mn == NULL)
-               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
-
-       spin_lock_init(&mn->lock);
-       mn->mn.ops = &i915_gem_userptr_notifier;
-       mn->objects = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
-       mn->wq = alloc_workqueue("i915-userptr-release", WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
-       if (mn->wq == NULL) {
-               kfree(mn);
-               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
-       }
-
-        /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
-       ret = __mmu_notifier_register(&mn->mn, mm);
-       if (ret) {
-               destroy_workqueue(mn->wq);
-               kfree(mn);
-               return ERR_PTR(ret);
-       }
-
-       return mn;
-}
-
 static void
 i915_gem_userptr_release__mmu_notifier(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
 {
@@ -210,23 +180,46 @@ i915_gem_userptr_release__mmu_notifier(struct 
drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
 static struct i915_mmu_notifier *
 i915_mmu_notifier_find(struct i915_mm_struct *mm)
 {
-       struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn = mm->mn;
+       struct i915_mmu_notifier *mn = mm->mn, *free_mn;
+       int ret;
 
        mn = mm->mn;
        if (mn)
                return mn;
 
+       free_mn = kmalloc(sizeof(*free_mn), GFP_KERNEL);
+       if (free_mn == NULL)
+               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+
+       spin_lock_init(&free_mn->lock);
+       free_mn->mn.ops = &i915_gem_userptr_notifier;
+       free_mn->objects = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
+       /* must allocate wq outside of mm->mmap_sem */
+       free_mn->wq = alloc_workqueue("i915-userptr-release", WQ_UNBOUND, 0);
+       if (free_mn->wq == NULL) {
+               ret = -ENOMEM;
+               goto err_kfree;
+       }
+
        down_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
        mutex_lock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
-       if ((mn = mm->mn) == NULL) {
-               mn = i915_mmu_notifier_create(mm->mm);
-               if (!IS_ERR(mn))
-                       mm->mn = mn;
+       if (mm->mn == NULL) {
+                /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
+               ret = __mmu_notifier_register(&free_mn->mn, mm->mm);
+               if (ret == 0)
+                       mm->mn = mn =free_mn;
+       } else {
+               mn = mm->mn;
        }
        mutex_unlock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
        up_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
 
-       return mn;
+err_wq:
+       destroy_workqueue(free_mn->wq);
+err_kfree:
+       kfree(free_mn);
+
+       return ret == 0 ? mn : ERR_PTR(ret);
 }
 
 static int
-- 
2.14.1

Reply via email to