linux.git/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd, branch v6.8-rc2 Linux kernel source tree drm/amdgpu/gfx11: set UNORD_DISPATCH in compute MQDs 2024-01-25T20:48:57+00:00 Alex Deucher alexander.deucher@amd.com 2024-01-19T17:32:59+00:00 3380fcad2c906872110d31ddf7aa1fdea57f9df6 This needs to be set to 1 to avoid a potential deadlock in the GC 10.x and newer. On GC 9.x and older, this needs to be set to 0. This can lead to hangs in some mixed graphics and compute workloads. Updated firmware is also required for AQL. Reviewed-by: Feifei Xu <Feifei.Xu@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org 
This needs to be set to 1 to avoid a potential deadlock in
the GC 10.x and newer.  On GC 9.x and older, this needs
to be set to 0. This can lead to hangs in some mixed
graphics and compute workloads. Updated firmware is also
required for AQL.

Reviewed-by: Feifei Xu <Feifei.Xu@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
drm/amdgpu/gfx10: set UNORD_DISPATCH in compute MQDs 2024-01-25T20:48:51+00:00 Alex Deucher alexander.deucher@amd.com 2024-01-19T17:23:55+00:00 03ff6d7238b77e5fb2b85dc5fe01d2db9eb893bd This needs to be set to 1 to avoid a potential deadlock in the GC 10.x and newer. On GC 9.x and older, this needs to be set to 0. This can lead to hangs in some mixed graphics and compute workloads. Updated firmware is also required for AQL. Reviewed-by: Feifei Xu <Feifei.Xu@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org 
This needs to be set to 1 to avoid a potential deadlock in
the GC 10.x and newer.  On GC 9.x and older, this needs
to be set to 0.  This can lead to hangs in some mixed
graphics and compute workloads.  Updated firmware is also
required for AQL.

Reviewed-by: Feifei Xu <Feifei.Xu@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
drm/amdkfd: Fix 'node' NULL check in 'svm_range_get_range_boundaries()' 2024-01-15T23:33:00+00:00 Srinivasan Shanmugam srinivasan.shanmugam@amd.com 2024-01-09T11:27:26+00:00 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 <Philip.Yang@amd.com> Cc: Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Srinivasan Shanmugam <srinivasan.shanmugam@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> 
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 <Philip.Yang@amd.com>
Cc: Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Srinivasan Shanmugam <srinivasan.shanmugam@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
drm/amdkfd: fixes for HMM mem allocation 2024-01-15T23:30:46+00:00 Dafna Hirschfeld dhirschfeld@habana.ai 2024-01-07T13:07:00+00:00 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 <felix.kuehling@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Dafna Hirschfeld <dhirschfeld@habana.ai> Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> 
Fix err return value and reset pgmap->type after checking it.

Fixes: c83dee9b6394 ("drm/amdkfd: add SPM support for SVM")
Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Dafna Hirschfeld <dhirschfeld@habana.ai>
Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
drm/amdkfd: Fix sparse __rcu annotation warnings 2024-01-09T20:44:13+00:00 Felix Kuehling felix.kuehling@amd.com 2024-01-03T23:13:04+00:00 c147ddc68e741aed78bba796effe049344d87ab8 Properly mark kfd_process->ef as __rcu and consistently use the right accessor functions. Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202312052245.yFpBSgNH-lkp@intel.com/ Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> 
Properly mark kfd_process->ef as __rcu and consistently use the right
accessor functions.

Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202312052245.yFpBSgNH-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
drm/amdkfd: Fix lock dependency warning with srcu 2024-01-09T20:44:13+00:00 Philip Yang Philip.Yang@amd.com 2023-12-29T20:19:25+00:00 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 <Philip.Yang@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> 
======================================================
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 <Philip.Yang@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
drm/amdkfd: Fix lock dependency warning 2024-01-09T20:43:53+00:00 Felix Kuehling felix.kuehling@amd.com 2024-01-02T20:07:44+00:00 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 <felix.kuehling@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Philip Yang <philip.yang@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> 
======================================================
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 <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Philip Yang <philip.yang@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Merge tag 'amd-drm-next-6.8-2024-01-05' of https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/agd5f/linux into drm-next 2024-01-08T23:07:50+00:00 Dave Airlie airlied@redhat.com 2024-01-08T23:07:42+00:00 e54478fbdad20f2c58d0a4f99d01299ed8e7fe9c amd-drm-next-6.8-2024-01-05: amdgpu: - VRR fixes - PSR-SU fixes - SubVP fixes - DCN 3.5 fixes - Documentation updates - DMCUB fixes - DML2 fixes - UMC 12.0 updates - GPUVM fix - Misc code cleanups and whitespace cleanups - DP MST fix - Let KFD sync with GPUVM fences - GFX11 reset fix - SMU 13.0.6 fixes - VSC fix for DP/eDP - Navi12 display fix - RN/CZN system aperture fix - DCN 2.1 bandwidth validation fix - DCN INIT cleanup amdkfd: - SVM fixes - Revert TBA/TMA location change Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> From: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20240105220522.4976-1-alexander.deucher@amd.com 
amd-drm-next-6.8-2024-01-05:

amdgpu:
- VRR fixes
- PSR-SU fixes
- SubVP fixes
- DCN 3.5 fixes
- Documentation updates
- DMCUB fixes
- DML2 fixes
- UMC 12.0 updates
- GPUVM fix
- Misc code cleanups and whitespace cleanups
- DP MST fix
- Let KFD sync with GPUVM fences
- GFX11 reset fix
- SMU 13.0.6 fixes
- VSC fix for DP/eDP
- Navi12 display fix
- RN/CZN system aperture fix
- DCN 2.1 bandwidth validation fix
- DCN INIT cleanup

amdkfd:
- SVM fixes
- Revert TBA/TMA location change

Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>

From: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20240105220522.4976-1-alexander.deucher@amd.com
Revert "drm/amdkfd: Relocate TBA/TMA to opposite side of VM hole" 2024-01-05T21:10:44+00:00 Kaibo Ma ent3rm4n@gmail.com 2024-01-03T04:29:56+00:00 0f35b0a7b8fa402adbffa2565047cdcc4c480153 That commit causes NULL pointer dereferences in dmesgs when running applications using ROCm, including clinfo, blender, and PyTorch, since v6.6.1. Revert it to fix blender again. This reverts commit 96c211f1f9ef82183493f4ceed4e347b52849149. Closes: https://github.com/ROCm/ROCm/issues/2596 Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2991 Reviewed-by: Jay Cornwall <jay.cornwall@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Kaibo Ma <ent3rm4n@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> 
That commit causes NULL pointer dereferences in dmesgs when
running applications using ROCm, including clinfo, blender,
and PyTorch, since v6.6.1. Revert it to fix blender again.

This reverts commit 96c211f1f9ef82183493f4ceed4e347b52849149.

Closes: https://github.com/ROCm/ROCm/issues/2596
Closes: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/2991
Reviewed-by: Jay Cornwall <jay.cornwall@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Kaibo Ma <ent3rm4n@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
drm/amdkfd: Fix iterator used outside loop in 'kfd_add_peer_prop()' 2024-01-05T21:10:43+00:00 Srinivasan Shanmugam srinivasan.shanmugam@amd.com 2023-12-29T09:37:09+00:00 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 <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Srinivasan Shanmugam <srinivasan.shanmugam@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com> 
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 <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Srinivasan Shanmugam <srinivasan.shanmugam@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Felix Kuehling <felix.kuehling@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>