When a request is preempted, it is unsubmitted from the HW queue and removed from the active list of breadcrumbs. In the process, this however triggers the signaler and it may see the clear rbtree with the old, and still valid, seqno. This confuses the signaler into action and signaling the fence.
Fixes: d6a2289d9d6b ("drm/i915: Remove the preempted request from the execution queue") Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com Cc: Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.12+ --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 20 ++++---------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c index efbc627a2a25..b955f7d7bd0f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c @@ -588,29 +588,16 @@ void intel_engine_remove_wait(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, spin_unlock_irq(&b->rb_lock); }
-static bool signal_valid(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) -{ - return intel_wait_check_request(&request->signaling.wait, request); -} - static bool signal_complete(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) { if (!request) return false;
- /* If another process served as the bottom-half it may have already - * signalled that this wait is already completed. - */ - if (intel_wait_complete(&request->signaling.wait)) - return signal_valid(request); - - /* Carefully check if the request is complete, giving time for the + /* + * Carefully check if the request is complete, giving time for the * seqno to be visible or if the GPU hung. */ - if (__i915_request_irq_complete(request)) - return true; - - return false; + return __i915_request_irq_complete(request); }
static struct drm_i915_gem_request *to_signaler(struct rb_node *rb) @@ -712,6 +699,7 @@ static int intel_breadcrumbs_signaler(void *arg) &request->fence.flags)) { local_bh_disable(); dma_fence_signal(&request->fence); + GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_gem_request_completed(request)); local_bh_enable(); /* kick start the tasklets */ }
Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-02-06 09:46:33)
When a request is preempted, it is unsubmitted from the HW queue and removed from the active list of breadcrumbs. In the process, this however triggers the signaler and it may see the clear rbtree with the old, and still valid, seqno. This confuses the signaler into action and signaling the fence.
Fixes: d6a2289d9d6b ("drm/i915: Remove the preempted request from the execution queue")
Testcase: igt/gem_exec_whisper/*-priority # reproducibility ~10% -Chris
Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-02-06 09:46:33)
When a request is preempted, it is unsubmitted from the HW queue and removed from the active list of breadcrumbs. In the process, this however triggers the signaler and it may see the clear rbtree with the old, and still valid, seqno. This confuses the signaler into action and signaling the fence.
Fixes: d6a2289d9d6b ("drm/i915: Remove the preempted request from the execution queue") Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com Cc: Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.12+
Any takers for this brown paper bug?
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 20 ++++---------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c index efbc627a2a25..b955f7d7bd0f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c @@ -588,29 +588,16 @@ void intel_engine_remove_wait(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, spin_unlock_irq(&b->rb_lock); } -static bool signal_valid(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) -{
return intel_wait_check_request(&request->signaling.wait, request);
-}
static bool signal_complete(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) { if (!request) return false;
/* If another process served as the bottom-half it may have already
* signalled that this wait is already completed.
*/
if (intel_wait_complete(&request->signaling.wait))
return signal_valid(request);
/* Carefully check if the request is complete, giving time for the
/*
* Carefully check if the request is complete, giving time for the * seqno to be visible or if the GPU hung. */
if (__i915_request_irq_complete(request))
return true;
return false;
return __i915_request_irq_complete(request);
} static struct drm_i915_gem_request *to_signaler(struct rb_node *rb) @@ -712,6 +699,7 @@ static int intel_breadcrumbs_signaler(void *arg) &request->fence.flags)) { local_bh_disable(); dma_fence_signal(&request->fence);
GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_gem_request_completed(request)); local_bh_enable(); /* kick start the tasklets */ }
2.15.1
On 06/02/2018 09:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
When a request is preempted, it is unsubmitted from the HW queue and removed from the active list of breadcrumbs. In the process, this however triggers the signaler and it may see the clear rbtree with the old, and still valid, seqno. This confuses the signaler into action and signaling the fence.
Fixes: d6a2289d9d6b ("drm/i915: Remove the preempted request from the execution queue") Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com Cc: Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.12+
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 20 ++++---------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c index efbc627a2a25..b955f7d7bd0f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c @@ -588,29 +588,16 @@ void intel_engine_remove_wait(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, spin_unlock_irq(&b->rb_lock); } -static bool signal_valid(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) -{
- return intel_wait_check_request(&request->signaling.wait, request);
-}
- static bool signal_complete(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) { if (!request) return false;
- /* If another process served as the bottom-half it may have already
* signalled that this wait is already completed.
*/
- if (intel_wait_complete(&request->signaling.wait))
return signal_valid(request);
Okay so this can return true for unsubmitted requests since rb node will be empty and global_seqno == wait.seqno == 0.
I just panic when thinking about races and ordering, since these checks used to run unlocked. So even better that they are gone.
- /* Carefully check if the request is complete, giving time for the
- /*
* Carefully check if the request is complete, giving time for the
*/
- seqno to be visible or if the GPU hung.
- if (__i915_request_irq_complete(request))
return true;
- return false;
- return __i915_request_irq_complete(request); > }
static struct drm_i915_gem_request *to_signaler(struct rb_node *rb) @@ -712,6 +699,7 @@ static int intel_breadcrumbs_signaler(void *arg) &request->fence.flags)) { local_bh_disable(); dma_fence_signal(&request->fence);
GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_gem_request_completed(request)); local_bh_enable(); /* kick start the tasklets */ }
Looks OK. But I can't say it's straightforward to understand it.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com
Regards,
Tvrtko
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-07 10:40:46)
On 06/02/2018 09:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
When a request is preempted, it is unsubmitted from the HW queue and removed from the active list of breadcrumbs. In the process, this however triggers the signaler and it may see the clear rbtree with the old, and still valid, seqno. This confuses the signaler into action and signaling the fence.
Fixes: d6a2289d9d6b ("drm/i915: Remove the preempted request from the execution queue") Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com Cc: Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.12+
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 20 ++++---------------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c index efbc627a2a25..b955f7d7bd0f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c @@ -588,29 +588,16 @@ void intel_engine_remove_wait(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, spin_unlock_irq(&b->rb_lock); } -static bool signal_valid(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) -{
return intel_wait_check_request(&request->signaling.wait, request);
-}
- static bool signal_complete(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) { if (!request) return false;
/* If another process served as the bottom-half it may have already
* signalled that this wait is already completed.
*/
if (intel_wait_complete(&request->signaling.wait))
return signal_valid(request);
Okay so this can return true for unsubmitted requests since rb node will be empty and global_seqno == wait.seqno == 0.
Hmm, ah, signal_valid() operated under the belief that its wait.seqno was untouched. That makes a bit more sense now. I was having to concoct some scary data races to try and explain how global_seqno and wait.seqno had the same non-zero value. -Chris
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-07 10:40:46)
On 06/02/2018 09:46, Chris Wilson wrote:
When a request is preempted, it is unsubmitted from the HW queue and removed from the active list of breadcrumbs. In the process, this however triggers the signaler and it may see the clear rbtree with the old, and still valid, seqno. This confuses the signaler into action and signaling the fence.
Fixes: d6a2289d9d6b ("drm/i915: Remove the preempted request from the execution queue") Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson chris@chris-wilson.co.uk Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com Cc: Joonas Lahtinen joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v4.12+
Looks OK. But I can't say it's straightforward to understand it.
But I hope the GEM_BUG_ON() was nice icing on the cake :)
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com
Thanks, added your explanation to the changelog and pushed. -Chris
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org