Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock

2017-10-10 Thread Daniel Vetter 
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 06:44:00PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 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-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1 Tainted: G U
> --
> prime_mmap/1551 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){}, at: [] 
> apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
> 
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> 
> -> #6 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}:
>__lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
>lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
>__mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
>mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
>i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
>i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
>drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
>drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
>do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
>SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
>entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> 
> -> #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+0xa3/0x840
>cpuhp_thread_fun+0x7a/0x150
>smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
>kthread+0x152/0x190
>ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> 
> -> #2 (cpuhp_state){+.+.}:
>__lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
>lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
>cpuhp_issue_call+0x10b/0x170
>__cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x134/0x2a0
>__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+0x52/0x2a0
>__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
>apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
>__alloc_workqueue_key+0x1d8/0x4d9
>i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x1fb/0x270 [i915]
>i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
>drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
>drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
>do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
>SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
>entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> Chain exists of:
>   cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev_priv->mm_lock
> 
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>CPU0CPU1
>
>   lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
>lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
>lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
>   lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> 
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> 2 locks held by prime_mmap/1551:
>  #0:  (&mm->mmap_sem){}, at: [] 
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x138/0x270 [i915]
>  #1:  (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
> 
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 4 PID: 1551 Comm: prime_mmap Tainted: G U  
> 4.14.0-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1
> Hardware

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock

2017-10-09 Thread Daniel Vetter 
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-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1 Tainted: G U
--
prime_mmap/1551 is trying to acquire lock:
 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){}, at: [] 
apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50

but task is already holding lock:
 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #6 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}:
   __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
   lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
   __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
   mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
   i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
   i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
   drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
   drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
   do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
   SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
   entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1

-> #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+0xa3/0x840
   cpuhp_thread_fun+0x7a/0x150
   smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
   kthread+0x152/0x190
   ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40

-> #2 (cpuhp_state){+.+.}:
   __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
   lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
   cpuhp_issue_call+0x10b/0x170
   __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x134/0x2a0
   __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+0x52/0x2a0
   __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
   apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
   __alloc_workqueue_key+0x1d8/0x4d9
   i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x1fb/0x270 [i915]
   i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
   drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
   drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
   do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
   SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
   entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
  cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev_priv->mm_lock

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

   CPU0CPU1
   
  lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
   lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
   lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
  lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

2 locks held by prime_mmap/1551:
 #0:  (&mm->mmap_sem){}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x138/0x270 [i915]
 #1:  (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]

stack backtrace:
CPU: 4 PID: 1551 Comm: prime_mmap Tainted: G U  
4.14.0-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1
Hardware name: Dell Inc. XPS 8300  /0Y2MRG, BIOS A06 10/17/2011
Call Trace:
 dump_stack+0x68/0x9f
 print_circular_bug+0x235/0x3c0
 ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
 check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
 __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
 ? __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
 ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
 lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
 ? apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x5

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock

2017-10-06 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin 


On 06/10/2017 15:23, Daniel Vetter wrote:

On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 12:34:02PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:


On 06/10/2017 10:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:

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:


[snipped lockdep splat]


v2: Set ret correctly when we raced with another thread.

v3: Use Chris' diff. Attach the right lockdep splat.

Cc: Chris Wilson 
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin 
Cc: Joonas Lahtinen 
Cc: Peter Zijlstra 
Cc: Thomas Gleixner 
Cc: Sasha Levin 
Cc: Marta Lofstedt 
Cc: Tejun Heo 
References: 
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/CI_DRM_3180/shard-hsw3/igt@prime_mmap@test_userptr.html
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102939
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter 
---
   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c | 35 
+++--
   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
index 2d4996de7331..f9b3406401af 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
@@ -164,7 +164,6 @@ 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)
@@ -179,14 +178,6 @@ i915_mmu_notifier_create(struct mm_struct *mm)
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;
   }
@@ -210,23 +201,37 @@ 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;
+   int err;
mn = mm->mn;
if (mn)
return mn;
+   mn = i915_mmu_notifier_create(mm->mm);
+   if (IS_ERR(mn))
+   return mn;


Strictly speaking we don't want to fail just yet, only it we actually needed
a new notifier and we failed to create it.


The check 2 lines above not good enough? It's somewhat racy, but I'm not
sure what value we provide by being perfectly correct against low memory.
This thread racing against a 2nd one, where the minimal allocation of the
2nd one pushed us perfectly over the oom threshold seems a very unlikely
scenario.

Also, small allocations actually never fail :-)


Yes, but, we otherwise make each other re-spin for much smaller things 
than bailout logic being conceptually at the wrong place. So for me I'd 
like a respin. It's not complicated at all, just move the bailout to to 
before the __mmu_notifier_register:


...

err = 0;
if (IS_ERR(mn))
err = PTR_ERR(..);

...

if (mana->manah == NULL) { /* ;-D */
/* Protect by mmap_sem...
if (err == 0) {
err = __mmu_notifier_register(..);
...
}
}

...

if (mn && !IS_ERR(mn)) {
...free...
}

I think.. ?

R-b on this, plus below, unless I got something wrong.






+
+   err = 0;
down_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
mutex_lock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
-   if ((mn = mm->mn) == NULL) {ed
-   mn = i915_mmu_notifier_create(mm->mm);
-   if (!IS_ERR(mn))
-   mm->mn = mn;
+   if (mm->mn == NULL) {
+   /* Protected by mmap_sem (write-lock) */
+   err = __mmu_notifier_register(&mn->mn, mm->mm);
+   if (!err) {
+   /* Protected by mm_lock */
+   mm->mn = fetch_and_zero(&mn);
+   }
}
mutex_unlock(&mm->i915->mm_lock);
up_write(&mm->mm->mmap_sem);
-   return mn;
+   if (mn) {
+   destroy_workqueue(mn->wq);
+   kfree(mn);
+   }
+
+   return err ? ERR_PTR(err) : mm->mn;
   }
   static int



Otherwise looks good to me.

I would also put a note in the commit on how working around the locking
issue is also beneficial to performance with moving the allocation step
outside the mmap_sem.


Yeah Chris brought that up too, I don't really buy it given how
heavy-weight __mmu_notifier_register is. But I can add something like:

"This also has the minor benefit of slightly reducing the critical
section where we hold mmap_sem."

r-b with that added to the commit message?


I think for me it is

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock

2017-10-06 Thread Daniel Vetter 
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 12:34:02PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> On 06/10/2017 10:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > 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-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1 Tainted: G U
> > --
> > prime_mmap/1551 is trying to acquire lock:
> >   (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){}, at: [] 
> > apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
> > 
> > but task is already holding lock:
> >   (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
> > i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
> > 
> > which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > 
> > the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > 
> > -> #6 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}:
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
> > mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
> > i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
> > i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
> > drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
> > drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
> > do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
> > SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> > 
> > -> #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+0xa3/0x840
> > cpuhp_thread_fun+0x7a/0x150
> > smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
> > kthread+0x152/0x190
> > ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> > 
> > -> #2 (cpuhp_state){+.+.}:
> > __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
> > lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
> > cpuhp_issue_call+0x10b/0x170
> > __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x134/0x2a0
> > __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+0x52/0x2a0
> > __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
> > apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
> > __alloc_workqueue_key+0x1d8/0x4d9
> > i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x1fb/0x270 [i915]
> > i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
> > drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
> > drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
> > do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
> > SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> > 
> > other info that might help us debug this:
> > 
> > Chain exists of:
> >cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev_priv->mm_lock
> > 
> >   Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > 
> > CPU0CPU1
> > 
> >lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
> > lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
> >lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock

2017-10-06 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin 


On 06/10/2017 10:06, Daniel Vetter wrote:

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-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1 Tainted: G U
--
prime_mmap/1551 is trying to acquire lock:
  (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){}, at: [] 
apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50

but task is already holding lock:
  (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #6 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}:
__lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
__mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1

-> #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+0xa3/0x840
cpuhp_thread_fun+0x7a/0x150
smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
kthread+0x152/0x190
ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40

-> #2 (cpuhp_state){+.+.}:
__lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
cpuhp_issue_call+0x10b/0x170
__cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x134/0x2a0
__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+0x52/0x2a0
__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
apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
__alloc_workqueue_key+0x1d8/0x4d9
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x1fb/0x270 [i915]
i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
   cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev_priv->mm_lock

  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

CPU0CPU1

   lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
   lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);

  *** DEADLOCK ***

2 locks held by prime_mmap/1551:
  #0:  (&mm->mmap_sem){}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x138/0x270 [i915]
  #1:  (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]

stack backtrace:
CPU: 4 PID: 1551 Comm: prime_mmap Tainted: G U  
4.14.0-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1
Hardware name: Dell Inc. XPS 8300  /0Y2MRG, BIOS A06 10/17/2011
Call Trace:
  dump_stack+0x68/0x9f
  print_circular_bug+0x235/0x3c0
  ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
  check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
  __lock_acquire+0x1420/

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock

2017-10-06 Thread Chris Wilson 
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2017-10-06 10:06:36)
> 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-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1 Tainted: G U
> --
> prime_mmap/1551 is trying to acquire lock:
>  (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){}, at: [] 
> apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
> 
> but task is already holding lock:
>  (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
> 
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
> 
> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> 
> -> #6 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}:
>__lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
>lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
>__mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
>mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
>i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
>i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
>drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
>drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
>do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
>SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
>entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> 
> -> #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+0xa3/0x840
>cpuhp_thread_fun+0x7a/0x150
>smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
>kthread+0x152/0x190
>ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40
> 
> -> #2 (cpuhp_state){+.+.}:
>__lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
>lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
>cpuhp_issue_call+0x10b/0x170
>__cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x134/0x2a0
>__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+0x52/0x2a0
>__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
>apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
>__alloc_workqueue_key+0x1d8/0x4d9
>i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x1fb/0x270 [i915]
>i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
>drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
>drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
>do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
>SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
>entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 
> Chain exists of:
>   cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev_priv->mm_lock
> 
>  Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>CPU0CPU1
>
>   lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
>lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
>lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
>   lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);
> 
>  *** DEADLOCK ***
> 
> 2 locks held by prime_mmap/1551:
>  #0:  (&mm->mmap_sem){}, at: [] 
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x138/0x270 [i915]
>  #1:  (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
> i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
> 
> stack backtrace:
> CPU: 4 PID: 1551 Comm: prime_mmap Tainted: G U  
> 4.14.0-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1
> Hardware name: Dell Inc. XPS

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock

2017-10-06 Thread Chris Wilson 
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2017-10-06 10:06:36)
> 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.

But you haven't mentioned why we might want to preallocate to reduce the
mmap/mm_lock coverage anyway.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Preallocate our mmu notifier workequeu to unbreak cpu hotplug deadlock

2017-10-06 Thread Daniel Vetter 
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-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1 Tainted: G U
--
prime_mmap/1551 is trying to acquire lock:
 (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){}, at: [] 
apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50

but task is already holding lock:
 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]

which lock already depends on the new lock.

the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

-> #6 (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}:
   __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
   lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
   __mutex_lock+0x86/0x9b0
   mutex_lock_nested+0x1b/0x20
   i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]
   i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
   drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
   drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
   do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
   SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
   entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1

-> #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+0xa3/0x840
   cpuhp_thread_fun+0x7a/0x150
   smpboot_thread_fn+0x18a/0x280
   kthread+0x152/0x190
   ret_from_fork+0x27/0x40

-> #2 (cpuhp_state){+.+.}:
   __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
   lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
   cpuhp_issue_call+0x10b/0x170
   __cpuhp_setup_state_cpuslocked+0x134/0x2a0
   __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+0x52/0x2a0
   __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
   apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x50
   __alloc_workqueue_key+0x1d8/0x4d9
   i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x1fb/0x270 [i915]
   i915_gem_userptr_ioctl+0x222/0x2c0 [i915]
   drm_ioctl_kernel+0x69/0xb0
   drm_ioctl+0x2f9/0x3d0
   do_vfs_ioctl+0x94/0x670
   SyS_ioctl+0x41/0x70
   entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1c/0xb1

other info that might help us debug this:

Chain exists of:
  cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem --> &mm->mmap_sem --> &dev_priv->mm_lock

 Possible unsafe locking scenario:

   CPU0CPU1
   
  lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
   lock(&mm->mmap_sem);
   lock(&dev_priv->mm_lock);
  lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem);

 *** DEADLOCK ***

2 locks held by prime_mmap/1551:
 #0:  (&mm->mmap_sem){}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x138/0x270 [i915]
 #1:  (&dev_priv->mm_lock){+.+.}, at: [] 
i915_gem_userptr_init__mmu_notifier+0x14a/0x270 [i915]

stack backtrace:
CPU: 4 PID: 1551 Comm: prime_mmap Tainted: G U  
4.14.0-rc1-CI-CI_DRM_3118+ #1
Hardware name: Dell Inc. XPS 8300  /0Y2MRG, BIOS A06 10/17/2011
Call Trace:
 dump_stack+0x68/0x9f
 print_circular_bug+0x235/0x3c0
 ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
 check_prev_add+0x430/0x840
 __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
 ? __lock_acquire+0x1420/0x15e0
 ? lockdep_init_map_crosslock+0x20/0x20
 lock_acquire+0xb0/0x200
 ? apply_workqueue_attrs+0x17/0x5