Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] Re: [RFC] drm/scheduler: Unwrap job dependencies

["Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com>]

Am 05.12.23 um 18:14 schrieb Rob Clark:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 8:56 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 7:58 AM Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> wrote:
>>> Am 05.12.23 um 16:41 schrieb Rob Clark:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 10:46 PM Christian König
>>>> <christian.koenig@amd.com> wrote:
>>>>> Am 04.12.23 um 22:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 2:30 PM Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> [SNIP]
>>>>>> So, this patch turns out to blow up spectacularly with dma_fence
>>>>>> refcnt underflows when I enable DRIVER_SYNCOBJ_TIMELINE .. I think,
>>>>>> because it starts unwrapping fence chains, possibly in parallel with
>>>>>> fence signaling on the retire path.  Is it supposed to be permissible
>>>>>> to unwrap a fence chain concurrently?
>>>>> The DMA-fence chain object and helper functions were designed so that
>>>>> concurrent accesses to all elements are always possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> See dma_fence_chain_walk() and dma_fence_chain_get_prev() for example.
>>>>> dma_fence_chain_walk() starts with a reference to the current fence (the
>>>>> anchor of the walk) and tries to grab an up to date reference on the
>>>>> previous fence in the chain. Only after that reference is successfully
>>>>> acquired we drop the reference to the anchor where we started.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same for dma_fence_array_first(), dma_fence_array_next(). Here we hold a
>>>>> reference to the array which in turn holds references to each fence
>>>>> inside the array until it is destroyed itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> When this blows up we have somehow mixed up the references somewhere.
>>>> That's what it looked like to me, but wanted to make sure I wasn't
>>>> overlooking something subtle.  And in this case, the fence actually
>>>> should be the syncobj timeline point fence, not the fence chain.
>>>> Virtgpu has essentially the same logic (there we really do want to
>>>> unwrap fences so we can pass host fences back to host rather than
>>>> waiting in guest), I'm not sure if it would blow up in the same way.
>>> Well do you have a backtrace of what exactly happens?
>>>
>>> Maybe we have some _put() before _get() or something like this.
>> I hacked up something to store the backtrace in dma_fence_release()
>> (and leak the block so the backtrace would still be around later when
>> dma_fence_get/put was later called) and ended up with:
>>
>> [  152.811360] freed at:
>> [  152.813718]  dma_fence_release+0x30/0x134
>> [  152.817865]  dma_fence_put+0x38/0x98 [gpu_sched]
>> [  152.822657]  drm_sched_job_add_dependency+0x160/0x18c [gpu_sched]
>> [  152.828948]  drm_sched_job_add_syncobj_dependency+0x58/0x88 [gpu_sched]
>> [  152.835770]  msm_ioctl_gem_submit+0x580/0x1160 [msm]
>> [  152.841070]  drm_ioctl_kernel+0xec/0x16c
>> [  152.845132]  drm_ioctl+0x2e8/0x3f4
>> [  152.848646]  vfs_ioctl+0x30/0x50
>> [  152.851982]  __arm64_sys_ioctl+0x80/0xb4
>> [  152.856039]  invoke_syscall+0x8c/0x120
>> [  152.859919]  el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0xc0/0xdc
>> [  152.864777]  do_el0_svc+0x24/0x30
>> [  152.868207]  el0_svc+0x8c/0xd8
>> [  152.871365]  el0t_64_sync_handler+0x84/0x12c
>> [  152.875771]  el0t_64_sync+0x190/0x194
>>
>> I suppose that doesn't guarantee that this was the problematic put.
>> But dropping this patch to unwrap the fence makes the problem go
>> away..
> Oh, hmm, _add_dependency() is consuming the fence reference

Yeah, I was just about to point that out as well :)

Should be trivial to fix,
Christian

>
> BR,
> -R
>
>> BR,
>> -R
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>> -R
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>> BR,
>>>>>> -R
> _______________________________________________
> Linaro-mm-sig mailing list -- linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to linaro-mm-sig-leave@lists.linaro.org