Applied.  Thanks!

Alex

On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 10:29 AM Christian König
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/31/26 16:21, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
> > Replace the PASID IDR + spinlock with XArray as noted in the TODO
> > left by commit dccd79bb1c7f ("drm/amdgpu: fix the idr allocation
> > flags").
> >
> > The IDR conversion still has an IRQ safety issue:
> > amdgpu_pasid_free() can be called from hardirq context via the fence
> > signal path, but amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock is taken with plain spin_lock()
> > in process context, creating a potential deadlock:
> >
> >      CPU0
> >      ----
> >      spin_lock(&amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock)   // process context, IRQs on
> >      <Interrupt>
> >        spin_lock(&amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock) // deadlock
> >
> >    The hardirq call chain is:
> >
> >      sdma_v6_0_process_trap_irq
> >       -> amdgpu_fence_process
> >        -> dma_fence_signal
> >         -> drm_sched_job_done
> >          -> dma_fence_signal
> >           -> amdgpu_pasid_free_cb
> >            -> amdgpu_pasid_free
> >
> > Use XArray with XA_FLAGS_LOCK_IRQ (all xa operations use IRQ-safe
> > locking internally) and XA_FLAGS_ALLOC1 (zero is not a valid PASID).
> > Both xa_alloc_cyclic() and xa_erase() then handle locking
> > consistently, fixing the IRQ safety issue and removing the need for
> > an explicit spinlock.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Lijo Lazar <[email protected]>
> > Fixes: e6d765de3d6b ("drm/amdgpu: prevent immediate PASID reuse case")
> > Signed-off-by: Mikhail Gavrilov <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Christian König <[email protected]>
>
> > ---
> >
> > v7: Rebased on amd-staging-drm-next which already includes
> >     dccd79bb1c7f ("drm/amdgpu: fix the idr allocation flags").
> >     Updated commit message to reflect that sleeping-under-spinlock
> >     is already fixed and the xarray conversion now addresses the
> >     remaining IRQ safety issue.  Inverted error check to
> >     if (r < 0) return r; per Christian König.
> > v6: Use DEFINE_XARRAY_FLAGS with XA_FLAGS_LOCK_IRQ | XA_FLAGS_ALLOC1
> >     so all xa operations use IRQ-safe locking internally.  Drop
> >     Cc: stable since the regression was never released to any stable
> >     kernel. (Christian König)
> >     
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > v5: Use explicit xa_lock_irqsave/__xa_erase for amdgpu_pasid_free()
> >     since xa_erase() only uses plain xa_lock() which is not safe from
> >     hardirq context.
> >     
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > v4: Use xa_alloc_cyclic/xa_erase directly instead of explicit
> >     xa_lock_irqsave, as suggested by Lijo Lazar.
> >     
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > v3: Replace IDR with XArray instead of fixing the spinlock, as
> >     suggested by Lijo Lazar.
> >     
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > v2: Added second patch fixing the {HARDIRQ-ON-W} -> {IN-HARDIRQ-W}
> >     lock inconsistency (spin_lock -> spin_lock_irqsave).
> >     
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> > v1: Fixed sleeping-under-spinlock (idr_alloc_cyclic with GFP_KERNEL)
> >     using idr_preload/GFP_NOWAIT.
> >     
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c | 34 ++++++++++---------------
> >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c 
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
> > index e495a8fa13fd..a6ac3b4ce0df 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ids.c
> > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
> >   */
> >  #include "amdgpu_ids.h"
> >
> > -#include <linux/idr.h>
> > +#include <linux/xarray.h>
> >  #include <linux/dma-fence-array.h>
> >
> >
> > @@ -40,8 +40,8 @@
> >   * VMs are looked up from the PASID per amdgpu_device.
> >   */
> >
> > -static DEFINE_IDR(amdgpu_pasid_idr);
> > -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock);
> > +static DEFINE_XARRAY_FLAGS(amdgpu_pasid_xa, XA_FLAGS_LOCK_IRQ | 
> > XA_FLAGS_ALLOC1);
> > +static u32 amdgpu_pasid_xa_next;
> >
> >  /* Helper to free pasid from a fence callback */
> >  struct amdgpu_pasid_cb {
> > @@ -62,22 +62,19 @@ struct amdgpu_pasid_cb {
> >   */
> >  int amdgpu_pasid_alloc(unsigned int bits)
> >  {
> > -     int pasid;
> > +     u32 pasid;
> > +     int r;
> >
> >       if (bits == 0)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >
> > -     spin_lock(&amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock);
> > -     /* TODO: Need to replace the idr with an xarry, and then
> > -      * handle the internal locking with ATOMIC safe paths.
> > -      */
> > -     pasid = idr_alloc_cyclic(&amdgpu_pasid_idr, NULL, 1,
> > -                              1U << bits, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > -     spin_unlock(&amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock);
> > -
> > -     if (pasid >= 0)
> > -             trace_amdgpu_pasid_allocated(pasid);
> > +     r = xa_alloc_cyclic(&amdgpu_pasid_xa, &pasid, xa_mk_value(0),
> > +                         XA_LIMIT(1, (1U << bits) - 1),
> > +                         &amdgpu_pasid_xa_next, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +     if (r < 0)
> > +             return r;
> >
> > +     trace_amdgpu_pasid_allocated(pasid);
> >       return pasid;
> >  }
> >
> > @@ -88,10 +85,7 @@ int amdgpu_pasid_alloc(unsigned int bits)
> >  void amdgpu_pasid_free(u32 pasid)
> >  {
> >       trace_amdgpu_pasid_freed(pasid);
> > -
> > -     spin_lock(&amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock);
> > -     idr_remove(&amdgpu_pasid_idr, pasid);
> > -     spin_unlock(&amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock);
> > +     xa_erase(&amdgpu_pasid_xa, pasid);
> >  }
> >
> >  static void amdgpu_pasid_free_cb(struct dma_fence *fence,
> > @@ -634,7 +628,5 @@ void amdgpu_vmid_mgr_fini(struct amdgpu_device *adev)
> >   */
> >  void amdgpu_pasid_mgr_cleanup(void)
> >  {
> > -     spin_lock(&amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock);
> > -     idr_destroy(&amdgpu_pasid_idr);
> > -     spin_unlock(&amdgpu_pasid_idr_lock);
> > +     xa_destroy(&amdgpu_pasid_xa);
> >  }
>

Reply via email to