kernel/linux.git/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd, branch v6.1.85

drm/amdkfd: fix TLB flush after unmap for GFX9.4.2

2024-04-03T13:19:49+00:00

commit 1210e2f1033dc56b666c9f6dfb761a2d3f9f5d6c upstream. TLB flush after unmap accidentially was removed on gfx9.4.2. It is to add it back. Signed-off-by: Eric Huang Reviewed-by: Harish Kasiviswanathan Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

drm/amdkfd: Fix 'node' NULL check in 'svm_range_get_range_boundaries()'

2024-02-05T20:13:00+00:00

[ Upstream commit d7a254fad873775ce6c32b77796c81e81e6b7f2e ] Range interval [start, last] is ordered by rb_tree, rb_prev, rb_next return value still needs NULL check, thus modified from "node" to "rb_node". Fixes the below: drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../amdkfd/kfd_svm.c:2691 svm_range_get_range_boundaries() warn: can 'node' even be NULL? Suggested-by: Philip Yang Cc: Felix Kuehling Cc: Christian König Cc: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Srinivasan Shanmugam Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

drm/amdkfd: Fix lock dependency warning with srcu

2024-02-05T20:12:59+00:00

[ Upstream commit 2a9de42e8d3c82c6990d226198602be44f43f340 ] ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.5.0-kfd-yangp #2289 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kworker/0:2/996 is trying to acquire lock: (srcu){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: __synchronize_srcu+0x5/0x1a0 but task is already holding lock: ((work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x211/0x560 which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #3 ((work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}: __flush_work+0x88/0x4f0 svm_range_list_lock_and_flush_work+0x3d/0x110 [amdgpu] svm_range_set_attr+0xd6/0x14c0 [amdgpu] kfd_ioctl+0x1d1/0x630 [amdgpu] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0 -> #2 (&info->lock#2){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x99/0xc70 amdgpu_amdkfd_gpuvm_restore_process_bos+0x54/0x740 [amdgpu] restore_process_helper+0x22/0x80 [amdgpu] restore_process_worker+0x2d/0xa0 [amdgpu] process_one_work+0x29b/0x560 worker_thread+0x3d/0x3d0 -> #1 ((work_completion)(&(&process->restore_work)->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}: __flush_work+0x88/0x4f0 __cancel_work_timer+0x12c/0x1c0 kfd_process_notifier_release_internal+0x37/0x1f0 [amdgpu] __mmu_notifier_release+0xad/0x240 exit_mmap+0x6a/0x3a0 mmput+0x6a/0x120 do_exit+0x322/0xb90 do_group_exit+0x37/0xa0 __x64_sys_exit_group+0x18/0x20 do_syscall_64+0x38/0x80 -> #0 (srcu){.+.+}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x1521/0x2510 lock_sync+0x5f/0x90 __synchronize_srcu+0x4f/0x1a0 __mmu_notifier_release+0x128/0x240 exit_mmap+0x6a/0x3a0 mmput+0x6a/0x120 svm_range_deferred_list_work+0x19f/0x350 [amdgpu] process_one_work+0x29b/0x560 worker_thread+0x3d/0x3d0 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: srcu --> &info->lock#2 --> (work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work) Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock((work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work)); lock(&info->lock#2); lock((work_completion)(&svms->deferred_list_work)); sync(srcu); Signed-off-by: Philip Yang Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

drm/amdkfd: Fix lock dependency warning

2024-02-05T20:12:59+00:00

[ Upstream commit 47bf0f83fc86df1bf42b385a91aadb910137c5c9 ] ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.5.0-kfd-fkuehlin #276 Not tainted ------------------------------------------------------ kworker/8:2/2676 is trying to acquire lock: ffff9435aae95c88 ((work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: __flush_work+0x52/0x550 but task is already holding lock: ffff9435cd8e1720 (&svms->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: svm_range_deferred_list_work+0xe8/0x340 [amdgpu] which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #2 (&svms->lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x97/0xd30 kfd_ioctl_alloc_memory_of_gpu+0x6d/0x3c0 [amdgpu] kfd_ioctl+0x1b2/0x5d0 [amdgpu] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x86/0xc0 do_syscall_64+0x39/0x80 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd -> #1 (&mm->mmap_lock){++++}-{3:3}: down_read+0x42/0x160 svm_range_evict_svm_bo_worker+0x8b/0x340 [amdgpu] process_one_work+0x27a/0x540 worker_thread+0x53/0x3e0 kthread+0xeb/0x120 ret_from_fork+0x31/0x50 ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 -> #0 ((work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}: __lock_acquire+0x1426/0x2200 lock_acquire+0xc1/0x2b0 __flush_work+0x80/0x550 __cancel_work_timer+0x109/0x190 svm_range_bo_release+0xdc/0x1c0 [amdgpu] svm_range_free+0x175/0x180 [amdgpu] svm_range_deferred_list_work+0x15d/0x340 [amdgpu] process_one_work+0x27a/0x540 worker_thread+0x53/0x3e0 kthread+0xeb/0x120 ret_from_fork+0x31/0x50 ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20 other info that might help us debug this: Chain exists of: (work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work) --> &mm->mmap_lock --> &svms->lock Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock(&svms->lock); lock(&mm->mmap_lock); lock(&svms->lock); lock((work_completion)(&svm_bo->eviction_work)); I believe this cannot really lead to a deadlock in practice, because svm_range_evict_svm_bo_worker only takes the mmap_read_lock if the BO refcount is non-0. That means it's impossible that svm_range_bo_release is running concurrently. However, there is no good way to annotate this. To avoid the problem, take a BO reference in svm_range_schedule_evict_svm_bo instead of in the worker. That way it's impossible for a BO to get freed while eviction work is pending and the cancel_work_sync call in svm_range_bo_release can be eliminated. v2: Use svm_bo_ref_unless_zero and explained why that's safe. Also removed redundant checks that are already done in amdkfd_fence_enable_signaling. Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling Reviewed-by: Philip Yang Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

drm/amdkfd: Fix iterator used outside loop in 'kfd_add_peer_prop()'

2024-02-05T20:12:57+00:00

[ Upstream commit b1a428b45dc7e47c7acc2ad0d08d8a6dda910c4c ] Fix the following about iterator use: drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../amdkfd/kfd_topology.c:1456 kfd_add_peer_prop() warn: iterator used outside loop: 'iolink3' Cc: Felix Kuehling Cc: Christian König Cc: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Srinivasan Shanmugam Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

drm/amdkfd: fixes for HMM mem allocation

2024-01-25T23:27:50+00:00

[ Upstream commit 02eed83abc1395a1207591aafad9bcfc5cb1abcb ] Fix err return value and reset pgmap->type after checking it. Fixes: c83dee9b6394 ("drm/amdkfd: add SPM support for SVM") Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling Signed-off-by: Dafna Hirschfeld Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

drm/amdkfd: Use resource_size() helper function

2024-01-25T23:27:50+00:00

[ Upstream commit 9d086e0ddaeb08876f4df3a1485166bfd7483252 ] Use the resource_size() function instead of a open coded computation resource size. It makes the code more readable. Issue identified using resource_size.cocci coccinelle semantic patch. Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Stable-dep-of: 02eed83abc13 ("drm/amdkfd: fixes for HMM mem allocation") Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

drm/amdkfd: Confirm list is non-empty before utilizing list_first_entry in kfd_topology.c

2024-01-25T23:27:38+00:00

[ Upstream commit 499839eca34ad62d43025ec0b46b80e77065f6d8 ] Before using list_first_entry, make sure to check that list is not empty, if list is empty return -ENODATA. Fixes the below: drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../amdkfd/kfd_topology.c:1347 kfd_create_indirect_link_prop() warn: can 'gpu_link' even be NULL? drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../amdkfd/kfd_topology.c:1428 kfd_add_peer_prop() warn: can 'iolink1' even be NULL? drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/../amdkfd/kfd_topology.c:1433 kfd_add_peer_prop() warn: can 'iolink2' even be NULL? Fixes: 0f28cca87e9a ("drm/amdkfd: Extend KFD device topology to surface peer-to-peer links") Cc: Felix Kuehling Cc: Christian König Cc: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Srinivasan Shanmugam Suggested-by: Felix Kuehling Suggested-by: Lijo Lazar Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

drm/amdkfd: Fix shift out-of-bounds issue

2023-11-28T17:06:58+00:00

[ Upstream commit 282c1d793076c2edac6c3db51b7e8ed2b41d60a5 ] [ 567.613292] shift exponent 255 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' [ 567.614498] CPU: 5 PID: 238 Comm: kworker/5:1 Tainted: G OE 6.2.0-34-generic #34~22.04.1-Ubuntu [ 567.614502] Hardware name: AMD Splinter/Splinter-RPL, BIOS WS43927N_871 09/25/2023 [ 567.614504] Workqueue: events send_exception_work_handler [amdgpu] [ 567.614748] Call Trace: [ 567.614750] [ 567.614753] dump_stack_lvl+0x48/0x70 [ 567.614761] dump_stack+0x10/0x20 [ 567.614763] __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0x156/0x310 [ 567.614769] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f [ 567.614773] ? update_sd_lb_stats.constprop.0+0xf2/0x3c0 [ 567.614780] svm_range_split_by_granularity.cold+0x2b/0x34 [amdgpu] [ 567.615047] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f [ 567.615052] svm_migrate_to_ram+0x185/0x4d0 [amdgpu] [ 567.615286] do_swap_page+0x7b6/0xa30 [ 567.615291] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0x7f [ 567.615294] ? __free_pages+0x119/0x130 [ 567.615299] handle_pte_fault+0x227/0x280 [ 567.615303] __handle_mm_fault+0x3c0/0x720 [ 567.615311] handle_mm_fault+0x119/0x330 [ 567.615314] ? lock_mm_and_find_vma+0x44/0x250 [ 567.615318] do_user_addr_fault+0x1a9/0x640 [ 567.615323] exc_page_fault+0x81/0x1b0 [ 567.615328] asm_exc_page_fault+0x27/0x30 [ 567.615332] RIP: 0010:__get_user_8+0x1c/0x30 Signed-off-by: Jesse Zhang Suggested-by: Philip Yang Reviewed-by: Yifan Zhang Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

drm/amdkfd: Fix a race condition of vram buffer unref in svm code

2023-11-28T17:06:57+00:00

[ Upstream commit 709c348261618da7ed89d6c303e2ceb9e453ba74 ] prange->svm_bo unref can happen in both mmu callback and a callback after migrate to system ram. Both are async call in different tasks. Sync svm_bo unref operation to avoid random "use-after-free". Signed-off-by: Xiaogang Chen Reviewed-by: Philip Yang Reviewed-by: Jesse Zhang Tested-by: Jesse Zhang Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin