Re: [PATCH] drm: Fix lock order reversal between mmap_sem and struct_mutex.

[Thomas H. <th...@sh...>]

Eric Anholt wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-20 at 08:36 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 18:04 -0800, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>     
>>> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 23:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 22:02 +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>>  
>>>>> It looks to me like the driver preferred locking order is
>>>>>
>>>>> object_mutex (which happens to be the device global struct_mutex)
>>>>>   mmap_sem
>>>>>      offset_mutex.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if one could avoid using the struct_mutex for object bookkeeping (A 
>>>>> separate lock) then
>>>>> vm_open() and vm_close() would adhere to that locking order as well, 
>>>>> simply by not taking the struct_mutex at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> So only fault() remains, in which that locking order is reversed. 
>>>>> Personally I think the trylock ->reschedule->retry method with proper 
>>>>> commenting is a good solution. It will be the _only_ place where locking 
>>>>> order is reversed and it is done in a deadlock-safe manner. Note that 
>>>>> fault() doesn't really fail, but requests a retry from user-space with 
>>>>> rescheduling to give the process holding the struct_mutex time to 
>>>>> release it.
>>>>>           
>>>> It doesn't do the reschedule -- need_resched() will check if the current
>>>> task was marked to be scheduled away, furthermore yield based locking
>>>> sucks chunks.
>>>>         
>> Imagine what would happen if your faulting task was the highest RT prio
>> task in the system, you'd end up with a life-lock.
>>
>>     
>>>> What's so very difficult about pulling the copy_*_user() out from under
>>>> the locks?
>>>>         
>>> That we're expecting the data movement to occur while holding device
>>> state in place.  For example, we write data through the GTT most of the
>>> time so we:
>>>
>>> lock struct_mutex
>>> pin the object to the GTT
>>> flushing caches as needed
>>> copy_from_user
>>> unpin object
>>> unlock struct_mutex
>>>       
>> So you cannot drop the lock once you've pinned the dst object?
>>
>>     
>>> If I'm to pull the copy_from_user out, that means I have to:
>>>
>>> alloc temporary storage
>>> for each block of temp storage size:
>>> 	copy_from_user
>>> 	lock struct_mutex
>>> 	pin the object to the GTT
>>> 	flush caches as needed
>>> 	memcpy
>>> 	unpin object
>>> 	unlock struct_mutex
>>>
>>> At this point of introducing our third copy of the user's data in our
>>> hottest path, we should probably ditch the pwrite path entirely and go
>>> to user mapping of the objects for performance.  Requiring user mapping
>>> (which has significant overhead) cuts the likelihood of moving from
>>> user-space object caching to kernel object caching in the future, which
>>> has the potential of saving steaming piles of memory.
>>>       
>> Or you could get_user_pages() to fault the user pages and pin them, and
>> then do pagefault_disable() and use copy_from_user_inatomic or such, and
>> release the pages again.
>>     
>
> I started poking at this today, since the get_user_pages sounded like
> the solution.  Only then I noticed: when we unbind an existing object,
> we have to unmap_mapping_range to clear the clients' mappings to it in
> the GTT, which needs to happen while the struct lock (protecting the gtt
> structure and the gtt to object mappings) is held.  So for fault we have
> mmap_sem held to struct mutex taken for poking at the gtt structure, and
> for unbind we have struct mutex held to mmap_sem taken to clear
> mappings.
>
>   
I don't think the mmap_sem is taken during unmap_mapping_rage() ?

/Thomas