[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <442d0e70-c9e2-4bd6-a144-ea083dbf86d2@damsy.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 13:06:52 +0100
From: Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer <pierre-eric@...sy.net>
To: phasta@...nel.org,
Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer <pierre-eric.pelloux-prayer@....com>,
Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
Christian König <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@...il.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] drm/sched: fix deadlock in
drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb
Le 30/10/2025 à 12:17, Philipp Stanner a écrit :
> On Wed, 2025-10-29 at 10:11 +0100, Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer wrote:
>> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/issues/13908 pointed out
>
> This link should be moved to the tag section at the bottom at a Closes:
> tag. Optionally a Reported-by:, too.
The bug report is about a different issue. The potential deadlock being fixed by
this patch was discovered while investigating it.
I'll add a Reported-by tag though.
>
>> a possible deadlock:
>>
>> [ 1231.611031] Possible interrupt unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> [ 1231.611033] CPU0 CPU1
>> [ 1231.611034] ---- ----
>> [ 1231.611035] lock(&xa->xa_lock#17);
>> [ 1231.611038] local_irq_disable();
>> [ 1231.611039] lock(&fence->lock);
>> [ 1231.611041] lock(&xa->xa_lock#17);
>> [ 1231.611044] <Interrupt>
>> [ 1231.611045] lock(&fence->lock);
>> [ 1231.611047]
>> *** DEADLOCK ***
>>
>
> The commit message is lacking an explanation as to _how_ and _when_ the
> deadlock comes to be. That's a prerequisite for understanding why the
> below is the proper fix and solution.
I copy-pasted a small chunk of the full deadlock analysis report included in the
ticket because it's 300+ lines long. Copying the full log isn't useful IMO, but
I can add more context.
The problem is that a thread (CPU0 above) can lock the job's dependencies
xa_array without disabling the interrupts.
If a fence signals while CPU0 holds this lock and drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb
is called, it will try to grab the xa_array lock which is not possible because
CPU0 holds it already.
>
> The issue seems to be that you cannot perform certain tasks from within
> that work item?
>
>> My initial fix was to replace xa_erase by xa_erase_irq, but Christian
>> pointed out that calling dma_fence_add_callback from a callback can
>> also deadlock if the signalling fence and the one passed to
>> dma_fence_add_callback share the same lock.
>>
>> To fix both issues, the code iterating on dependencies and re-arming them
>> is moved out to drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_work.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer <pierre-eric.pelloux-prayer@....com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 34 +++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> index c8e949f4a568..fe174a4857be 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
>> @@ -173,26 +173,15 @@ int drm_sched_entity_error(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_sched_entity_error);
>>
>> +static void drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_cb(struct dma_fence *f,
>> + struct dma_fence_cb *cb);
>> +
>> static void drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_work(struct work_struct *wrk)
>> {
>> struct drm_sched_job *job = container_of(wrk, typeof(*job), work);
>> -
>> - drm_sched_fence_scheduled(job->s_fence, NULL);
>> - drm_sched_fence_finished(job->s_fence, -ESRCH);
>> - WARN_ON(job->s_fence->parent);
>> - job->sched->ops->free_job(job);
>
> Can free_job() really not be called from within work item context?
It's still called from drm_sched_entity_kill_jobs_work but the diff is slightly
confusing.
Pierre-Eric
>
>
> P.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists