[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMdPcWZi4x7vnCxI@google.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 21:45:37 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: drm/i915: __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL allocations in stable kernels
Hi,
We are observing some user-space crashes (sigabort, segfaults etc.)
under moderate memory pressure (pretty far from severe pressure) which
have one thing in common - restrictive GFP mask in setup_scratch_page().
For instance, (stable 4.19) drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
(trimmed down version)
static int gen8_init_scratch(struct i915_address_space *vm)
{
setup_scratch_page(vm, __GFP_HIGHMEM);
vm->scratch_pt = alloc_pt(vm);
vm->scratch_pd = alloc_pd(vm);
if (use_4lvl(vm)) {
vm->scratch_pdp = alloc_pdp(vm);
}
}
gen8_init_scratch() function puts a rather inconsistent restrictions on mm.
Looking at it line by line:
setup_scratch_page() uses very restrictive gfp mask:
__GFP_HIGHMEM | __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL
it doesn't try to reclaim anything and fails almost immediately.
alloc_pt() - uses more permissive gfp mask:
GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOWARN
alloc_pd() - likewise:
GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOWARN
alloc_pdp() - very permissive gfp mask:
GFP_KERNEL
So can all allocations in gen8_init_scratch() use
GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOWARN
?
E.g.
---
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
index a12430187108..e862680b9c93 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
@@ -792,7 +792,7 @@ alloc_pdp(struct i915_address_space *vm)
GEM_BUG_ON(!use_4lvl(vm));
- pdp = kzalloc(sizeof(*pdp), GFP_KERNEL);
+ pdp = kzalloc(sizeof(*pdp), I915_GFP_ALLOW_FAIL);
if (!pdp)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@ static int gen8_init_scratch(struct i915_address_space *vm)
{
int ret;
- ret = setup_scratch_page(vm, __GFP_HIGHMEM);
+ ret = setup_scratch_page(vm, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -1972,7 +1972,7 @@ static int gen6_ppgtt_init_scratch(struct gen6_hw_ppgtt *ppgtt)
u32 pde;
int ret;
- ret = setup_scratch_page(vm, __GFP_HIGHMEM);
+ ret = setup_scratch_page(vm, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -3078,7 +3078,7 @@ static int ggtt_probe_common(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt, u64 size)
return -ENOMEM;
}
- ret = setup_scratch_page(&ggtt->vm, GFP_DMA32);
+ ret = setup_scratch_page(&ggtt->vm, GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA32);
if (ret) {
DRM_ERROR("Scratch setup failed\n");
/* iounmap will also get called at remove, but meh */
---
It's quite similar on stable 5.4 - setup_scratch_page() uses restrictive
gfp mask again.
---
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
index f614646ed3f9..99d78b1052df 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_gtt.c
@@ -1378,7 +1378,7 @@ static int gen8_init_scratch(struct i915_address_space *vm)
return 0;
}
- ret = setup_scratch_page(vm, __GFP_HIGHMEM);
+ ret = setup_scratch_page(vm, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -1753,7 +1753,7 @@ static int gen6_ppgtt_init_scratch(struct gen6_ppgtt *ppgtt)
struct i915_page_directory * const pd = ppgtt->base.pd;
int ret;
- ret = setup_scratch_page(vm, __GFP_HIGHMEM);
+ ret = setup_scratch_page(vm, GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_HIGHMEM);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -2860,7 +2860,7 @@ static int ggtt_probe_common(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt, u64 size)
return -ENOMEM;
}
- ret = setup_scratch_page(&ggtt->vm, GFP_DMA32);
+ ret = setup_scratch_page(&ggtt->vm, GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA32);
if (ret) {
DRM_ERROR("Scratch setup failed\n");
/* iounmap will also get called at remove, but meh */
---
Powered by blists - more mailing lists