| Message ID | 20200519002124.2025955-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | mm/gup, drm/i915: refactor gup_fast, convert to pin_user_pages() | expand |
Quoting John Hubbard (2020-05-19 01:21:20) > This needs to go through Andrew's -mm tree, due to adding a new gup.c > routine. However, I would really love to have some testing from the > drm/i915 folks, because I haven't been able to run-time test that part > of it. CI hit <4> [185.667750] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1387 at mm/gup.c:2699 internal_get_user_pages_fast+0x63a/0xac0 <4> [185.667752] Modules linked in: vgem snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic i915 mei_hdcp x86_pkg_temp_thermal coretemp snd_hda_intel snd_intel_dspcfg crct10dif_pclmul snd_hda_codec crc32_pclmul snd_hwdep snd_hda_core ghash_clmulni_intel cdc_ether usbnet mii snd_pcm e1000e mei_me ptp pps_core mei intel_lpss_pci prime_numbers <4> [185.667774] CPU: 0 PID: 1387 Comm: gem_userptr_bli Tainted: G U 5.7.0-rc5-CI-Patchwork_17704+ #1 <4> [185.667777] Hardware name: Intel Corporation Ice Lake Client Platform/IceLake U DDR4 SODIMM PD RVP, BIOS ICLSFWR1.R00.3234.A01.1906141750 06/14/2019 <4> [185.667782] RIP: 0010:internal_get_user_pages_fast+0x63a/0xac0 <4> [185.667785] Code: 24 40 08 48 39 5c 24 38 49 89 df 0f 85 74 fc ff ff 48 83 44 24 50 08 48 39 5c 24 58 49 89 dc 0f 85 e0 fb ff ff e9 14 fe ff ff <0f> 0b b8 ea ff ff ff e9 36 fb ff ff 4c 89 e8 48 21 e8 48 39 e8 0f <4> [185.667789] RSP: 0018:ffffc90001133c38 EFLAGS: 00010206 <4> [185.667792] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffff8884999ee800 <4> [185.667795] RDX: 00000000000c0001 RSI: 0000000000000100 RDI: 00007f419e774000 <4> [185.667798] RBP: ffff888453dbf040 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000001 <4> [185.667800] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff888453dbf380 <4> [185.667803] R13: ffff8884999ee800 R14: ffff888453dbf3e8 R15: 0000000000000040 <4> [185.667806] FS: 00007f419e875e40(0000) GS:ffff88849fe00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 <4> [185.667808] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 <4> [185.667811] CR2: 00007f419e873000 CR3: 0000000458bd2004 CR4: 0000000000760ef0 <4> [185.667814] PKRU: 55555554 <4> [185.667816] Call Trace: <4> [185.667912] ? i915_gem_userptr_get_pages+0x1c6/0x290 [i915] <4> [185.667918] ? mark_held_locks+0x49/0x70 <4> [185.667998] ? i915_gem_userptr_get_pages+0x1c6/0x290 [i915] <4> [185.668073] ? i915_gem_userptr_get_pages+0x1c6/0x290 [i915] and then panicked, across a range of systems. -Chris
On 2020-05-21 11:57, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting John Hubbard (2020-05-19 01:21:20) >> This needs to go through Andrew's -mm tree, due to adding a new gup.c >> routine. However, I would really love to have some testing from the >> drm/i915 folks, because I haven't been able to run-time test that part >> of it. > > CI hit > > <4> [185.667750] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1387 at mm/gup.c:2699 internal_get_user_pages_fast+0x63a/0xac0 > <4> [185.667752] Modules linked in: vgem snd_hda_codec_hdmi snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic i915 mei_hdcp x86_pkg_temp_thermal coretemp snd_hda_intel snd_intel_dspcfg crct10dif_pclmul snd_hda_codec crc32_pclmul snd_hwdep snd_hda_core ghash_clmulni_intel cdc_ether usbnet mii snd_pcm e1000e mei_me ptp pps_core mei intel_lpss_pci prime_numbers > <4> [185.667774] CPU: 0 PID: 1387 Comm: gem_userptr_bli Tainted: G U 5.7.0-rc5-CI-Patchwork_17704+ #1 > <4> [185.667777] Hardware name: Intel Corporation Ice Lake Client Platform/IceLake U DDR4 SODIMM PD RVP, BIOS ICLSFWR1.R00.3234.A01.1906141750 06/14/2019 > <4> [185.667782] RIP: 0010:internal_get_user_pages_fast+0x63a/0xac0 > <4> [185.667785] Code: 24 40 08 48 39 5c 24 38 49 89 df 0f 85 74 fc ff ff 48 83 44 24 50 08 48 39 5c 24 58 49 89 dc 0f 85 e0 fb ff ff e9 14 fe ff ff <0f> 0b b8 ea ff ff ff e9 36 fb ff ff 4c 89 e8 48 21 e8 48 39 e8 0f > <4> [185.667789] RSP: 0018:ffffc90001133c38 EFLAGS: 00010206 > <4> [185.667792] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffff8884999ee800 > <4> [185.667795] RDX: 00000000000c0001 RSI: 0000000000000100 RDI: 00007f419e774000 > <4> [185.667798] RBP: ffff888453dbf040 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000001 > <4> [185.667800] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff888453dbf380 > <4> [185.667803] R13: ffff8884999ee800 R14: ffff888453dbf3e8 R15: 0000000000000040 > <4> [185.667806] FS: 00007f419e875e40(0000) GS:ffff88849fe00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > <4> [185.667808] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > <4> [185.667811] CR2: 00007f419e873000 CR3: 0000000458bd2004 CR4: 0000000000760ef0 > <4> [185.667814] PKRU: 55555554 > <4> [185.667816] Call Trace: > <4> [185.667912] ? i915_gem_userptr_get_pages+0x1c6/0x290 [i915] > <4> [185.667918] ? mark_held_locks+0x49/0x70 > <4> [185.667998] ? i915_gem_userptr_get_pages+0x1c6/0x290 [i915] > <4> [185.668073] ? i915_gem_userptr_get_pages+0x1c6/0x290 [i915] > > and then panicked, across a range of systems. > -Chris > Thanks for this report! I'm looking into it now. thanks,
Hi John, On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:51 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote: > > This needs to go through Andrew's -mm tree, due to adding a new gup.c > routine. However, I would really love to have some testing from the > drm/i915 folks, because I haven't been able to run-time test that part > of it. > > Otherwise, though, the series has passed my basic run time testing: > some LTP tests, some xfs and etx4 non-destructive xfstests, and an > assortment of other smaller ones: vm selftests, io_uring_register, a > few more. But that's only on one particular machine. Also, cross-compile > tests for half a dozen arches all pass. > > Details: > > In order to convert the drm/i915 driver from get_user_pages() to > pin_user_pages(), a FOLL_PIN equivalent of __get_user_pages_fast() was > required. That led to refactoring __get_user_pages_fast(), with the > following goals: > > 1) As above: provide a pin_user_pages*() routine for drm/i915 to call, > in place of __get_user_pages_fast(), > > 2) Get rid of the gup.c duplicate code for walking page tables with > interrupts disabled. This duplicate code is a minor maintenance > problem anyway. > > 3) Make it easy for an upcoming patch from Souptick, which aims to > convert __get_user_pages_fast() to use a gup_flags argument, instead > of a bool writeable arg. Also, if this series looks good, we can > ask Souptick to change the name as well, to whatever the consensus > is. My initial recommendation is: get_user_pages_fast_only(), to > match the new pin_user_pages_only(). Shall I hold my changes till 5.8-rc1 , when this series will appear upstream ? > > John Hubbard (4): > mm/gup: move __get_user_pages_fast() down a few lines in gup.c > mm/gup: refactor and de-duplicate gup_fast() code > mm/gup: introduce pin_user_pages_fast_only() > drm/i915: convert get_user_pages() --> pin_user_pages() > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c | 22 +-- > include/linux/mm.h | 3 + > mm/gup.c | 150 ++++++++++++-------- > 3 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: 642b151f45dd54809ea00ecd3976a56c1ec9b53d > -- > 2.26.2 >
On 2020-05-22 04:40, Souptick Joarder wrote: ... >> 3) Make it easy for an upcoming patch from Souptick, which aims to >> convert __get_user_pages_fast() to use a gup_flags argument, instead >> of a bool writeable arg. Also, if this series looks good, we can >> ask Souptick to change the name as well, to whatever the consensus >> is. My initial recommendation is: get_user_pages_fast_only(), to >> match the new pin_user_pages_only(). > > Shall I hold my changes till 5.8-rc1 , when this series will appear upstream ? I don't really see any problem with your posting something that is based on the latest linux-next (which has my changes now). Should be fine. And in fact it would be nice to get that done in this round, so that the pin* and get* APIs look the same. thanks,