| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZquafkbK67ecsp99@trashcan>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 14:23:58 +0000
From: Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@...il.com>
To: Connor Abbott <cwabbott0@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Jordan Crouse <jordan@...micpenguin.net>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] drm/msm/a5xx: fix races in preemption evaluation
stage
On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 01:52:32PM +0100, Connor Abbott wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 1:25 PM Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Connor Abbott wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:10 AM Vladimir Lypak
> > > <vladimir.lypak@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On A5XX GPUs when preemption is used it's invietable to enter a soft
> > > > lock-up state in which GPU is stuck at empty ring-buffer doing nothing.
> > > > This appears as full UI lockup and not detected as GPU hang (because
> > > > it's not). This happens due to not triggering preemption when it was
> > > > needed. Sometimes this state can be recovered by some new submit but
> > > > generally it won't happen because applications are waiting for old
> > > > submits to retire.
> > > >
> > > > One of the reasons why this happens is a race between a5xx_submit and
> > > > a5xx_preempt_trigger called from IRQ during submit retire. Former thread
> > > > updates ring->cur of previously empty and not current ring right after
> > > > latter checks it for emptiness. Then both threads can just exit because
> > > > for first one preempt_state wasn't NONE yet and for second one all rings
> > > > appeared to be empty.
> > > >
> > > > To prevent such situations from happening we need to establish guarantee
> > > > for preempt_trigger to be called after each submit. To implement it this
> > > > patch adds trigger call at the end of a5xx_preempt_irq to re-check if we
> > > > should switch to non-empty or higher priority ring. Also we find next
> > > > ring in new preemption state "EVALUATE". If the thread that updated some
> > > > ring with new submit sees this state it should wait until it passes.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: b1fc2839d2f9 ("drm/msm: Implement preemption for A5XX targets")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@...il.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.c | 6 +++---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.h | 11 +++++++----
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_preempt.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++----
> > > > 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.c
> > > > index 6c80d3003966..266744ee1d5f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.c
> > > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static void a5xx_submit_in_rb(struct msm_gpu *gpu, struct msm_gem_submit *submit
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > a5xx_flush(gpu, ring, true);
> > > > - a5xx_preempt_trigger(gpu);
> > > > + a5xx_preempt_trigger(gpu, true);
> > > >
> > > > /* we might not necessarily have a cmd from userspace to
> > > > * trigger an event to know that submit has completed, so
> > > > @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ static void a5xx_submit(struct msm_gpu *gpu, struct msm_gem_submit *submit)
> > > > a5xx_flush(gpu, ring, false);
> > > >
> > > > /* Check to see if we need to start preemption */
> > > > - a5xx_preempt_trigger(gpu);
> > > > + a5xx_preempt_trigger(gpu, true);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static const struct adreno_five_hwcg_regs {
> > > > @@ -1296,7 +1296,7 @@ static irqreturn_t a5xx_irq(struct msm_gpu *gpu)
> > > > a5xx_gpmu_err_irq(gpu);
> > > >
> > > > if (status & A5XX_RBBM_INT_0_MASK_CP_CACHE_FLUSH_TS) {
> > > > - a5xx_preempt_trigger(gpu);
> > > > + a5xx_preempt_trigger(gpu, false);
> > > > msm_gpu_retire(gpu);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.h
> > > > index c7187bcc5e90..1120824853d4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_gpu.h
> > > > @@ -57,10 +57,12 @@ void a5xx_debugfs_init(struct msm_gpu *gpu, struct drm_minor *minor);
> > > > * through the process.
> > > > *
> > > > * PREEMPT_NONE - no preemption in progress. Next state START.
> > > > - * PREEMPT_START - The trigger is evaulating if preemption is possible. Next
> > > > - * states: TRIGGERED, NONE
> > > > + * PREEMPT_EVALUATE - The trigger is evaulating if preemption is possible. Next
> > > > + * states: START, ABORT
> > > > * PREEMPT_ABORT - An intermediate state before moving back to NONE. Next
> > > > * state: NONE.
> > > > + * PREEMPT_START - The trigger is preparing for preemption. Next state:
> > > > + * TRIGGERED
> > > > * PREEMPT_TRIGGERED: A preemption has been executed on the hardware. Next
> > > > * states: FAULTED, PENDING
> > > > * PREEMPT_FAULTED: A preemption timed out (never completed). This will trigger
> > > > @@ -71,8 +73,9 @@ void a5xx_debugfs_init(struct msm_gpu *gpu, struct drm_minor *minor);
> > > >
> > > > enum preempt_state {
> > > > PREEMPT_NONE = 0,
> > > > - PREEMPT_START,
> > > > + PREEMPT_EVALUATE,
> > > > PREEMPT_ABORT,
> > > > + PREEMPT_START,
> > > > PREEMPT_TRIGGERED,
> > > > PREEMPT_FAULTED,
> > > > PREEMPT_PENDING,
> > > > @@ -156,7 +159,7 @@ void a5xx_set_hwcg(struct msm_gpu *gpu, bool state);
> > > >
> > > > void a5xx_preempt_init(struct msm_gpu *gpu);
> > > > void a5xx_preempt_hw_init(struct msm_gpu *gpu);
> > > > -void a5xx_preempt_trigger(struct msm_gpu *gpu);
> > > > +void a5xx_preempt_trigger(struct msm_gpu *gpu, bool new_submit);
> > > > void a5xx_preempt_irq(struct msm_gpu *gpu);
> > > > void a5xx_preempt_fini(struct msm_gpu *gpu);
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_preempt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_preempt.c
> > > > index 67a8ef4adf6b..f8d09a83c5ae 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_preempt.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/adreno/a5xx_preempt.c
> > > > @@ -87,21 +87,33 @@ static void a5xx_preempt_timer(struct timer_list *t)
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > /* Try to trigger a preemption switch */
> > > > -void a5xx_preempt_trigger(struct msm_gpu *gpu)
> > > > +void a5xx_preempt_trigger(struct msm_gpu *gpu, bool new_submit)
> > > > {
> > > > struct adreno_gpu *adreno_gpu = to_adreno_gpu(gpu);
> > > > struct a5xx_gpu *a5xx_gpu = to_a5xx_gpu(adreno_gpu);
> > > > unsigned long flags;
> > > > struct msm_ringbuffer *ring;
> > > > + enum preempt_state state;
> > > >
> > > > if (gpu->nr_rings == 1)
> > > > return;
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > - * Try to start preemption by moving from NONE to START. If
> > > > - * unsuccessful, a preemption is already in flight
> > > > + * Try to start preemption by moving from NONE to EVALUATE. If current
> > > > + * state is EVALUATE/ABORT we can't just quit because then we can't
> > > > + * guarantee that preempt_trigger will be called after ring is updated
> > > > + * by new submit.
> > > > */
> > > > - if (!try_preempt_state(a5xx_gpu, PREEMPT_NONE, PREEMPT_START))
> > > > + state = atomic_cmpxchg(&a5xx_gpu->preempt_state, PREEMPT_NONE,
> > > > + PREEMPT_EVALUATE);
> > > > + while (new_submit && (state == PREEMPT_EVALUATE ||
> > > > + state == PREEMPT_ABORT)) {
> > >
> > > This isn't enough because even if new_submit is false then we may
> > > still need to guarantee that evaluation happens. We've seen a hang in
> > > a scenario like:
> > >
> > > 1. A job is submitted and executed on ring 0.
> > > 2. A job is submitted on ring 2 while ring 0 is still active but
> > > almost finished.
> > > 3. The submission thread starts evaluating and sees that ring 0 is still busy.
> > > 4. The job on ring 0 finishes and a CACHE_FLUSH IRQ is raised.
> > > 5. The IRQ tries to trigger a preemption but the state is still
> > > PREEMPT_EVALUATE or PREEMPT_ABORT and exits.
> > > 6. The submission thread finishes update_wptr() and finally sets the
> > > state to PREEMPT_NONE too late.
> > >
> > > Then we never preempt to ring 2 and there's a soft lockup.
> >
> > Thanks, i've missed that. It would need to always wait to prevent such
> > scenario. The next patch prevented this from happening for me so i have
> > overlooked it.
> >
> > Alternatively there is another approach which should perform better: to
> > let evaluation stage run in parallel.
> >
> > Also i've tried serializing preemption handling on ordered workqueue and
> > GPU kthread worker. It's a lot simpler but latency from IRQ doesn't look
> > good:
> >
> > flush-trigger SW_IRQ-pending flush_IRQ-trigger
> > uSecs 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
> > 0-10 1515 43 65 4423 39 24 647 0 2
> > 10-20 1484 453 103 446 414 309 399 1 1
> > 20-40 827 1802 358 19 819 587 2 21 6
> > 40-60 7 1264 397 1 368 329 0 30 14
> > 60-80 4 311 115 0 181 178 0 24 12
> > 80-120 2 36 251 0 250 188 0 9 13
> > 120-160 0 4 244 0 176 248 0 226 150
> > 160-200 0 1 278 0 221 235 0 86 78
> > 200-400 0 2 1266 0 1318 1186 0 476 688
> > 400-700 0 0 553 0 745 1028 0 150 106
> > 700-1000 0 0 121 0 264 366 0 65 28
> > 1000-1500 0 0 61 0 160 205 0 21 8
> > >2000 0 0 12 0 71 48 0 0 0
> >
> > 1 - current implementation but with evaluation in parallel.
> > 2 - serialized on ordered workqueue.
> > 3 - serialized on GPU kthread_worker.
>
> The problem with evaluating in parallel is that evaluating can race
> with the rest of the process - it's possible for the thread evaluating
> to go to be interrupted just before moving the state to PREEMPT_START
> and in the meantime an entire preemption has happened and it's out of
> date.
Right. This gets complicated to fix for sure.
>
> What we did was to put a spinlock around the entire evaluation stage,
> effectively replacing the busy loop and the EVALUATE stage. It unlocks
> only after moving the state to NONE or knowing for certain that we're
> starting a preemption. That should be lower latency than a workqueue
> while the critical section shouldn't be that large (it's one atomic
> operation and checking each ring), and in any case that's what the
> spinning loop was doing anyway.
Actually this is what i've done initially but i didn't want to introduce
another spinlock.
Another thing to consider is: to disable IRQs for entire trigger routine
and use regular spin_lock instead so once it's decided to do a switch
it won't get interrupted (when called from submit).
Vladimir
>
> Connor
>
> >
> > Vladimir
> >
> > >
> > > Connor
> > >
> > > > + cpu_relax();
> > > > + state = atomic_cmpxchg(&a5xx_gpu->preempt_state, PREEMPT_NONE,
> > > > + PREEMPT_EVALUATE);
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (state != PREEMPT_NONE)
> > > > return;
> > > >
> > > > /* Get the next ring to preempt to */
> > > > @@ -130,6 +142,8 @@ void a5xx_preempt_trigger(struct msm_gpu *gpu)
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + set_preempt_state(a5xx_gpu, PREEMPT_START);
> > > > +
> > > > /* Make sure the wptr doesn't update while we're in motion */
> > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&ring->preempt_lock, flags);
> > > > a5xx_gpu->preempt[ring->id]->wptr = get_wptr(ring);
> > > > @@ -188,6 +202,8 @@ void a5xx_preempt_irq(struct msm_gpu *gpu)
> > > > update_wptr(gpu, a5xx_gpu->cur_ring);
> > > >
> > > > set_preempt_state(a5xx_gpu, PREEMPT_NONE);
> > > > +
> > > > + a5xx_preempt_trigger(gpu, false);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > void a5xx_preempt_hw_init(struct msm_gpu *gpu)
> > > > --
> > > > 2.45.2
> > > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists