The V2 of this patch is already reviewed by Harry.
The change i have made in dc_create() is no more applicable.
Regards,
Shirish S
On 5/31/2018 11:35 PM, Christian König wrote:
> Am 30.05.2018 um 18:03 schrieb Harry Wentland:
>> On 2018-05-30 06:17 AM, Shirish S wrote:
>>> This patch fixes the warning messages that are caused due to calling
>>> sleep in atomic context as below:
>>>
>>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slab.h:419
>>> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 1, pid: 5, name: kworker/u4:0
>>> CPU: 1 PID: 5 Comm: kworker/u4:0 Tainted: GÂ Â Â Â Â Â Â W 4.14.35 #941
>>> Workqueue: events_unbound commit_work
>>> Call Trace:
>>> Â dump_stack+0x4d/0x63
>>> Â ___might_sleep+0x11f/0x12e
>>> Â kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x41/0xea
>>> Â dc_create_state+0x1f/0x30
>>> Â dc_commit_updates_for_stream+0x73/0x4cf
>>> Â ? amdgpu_get_crtc_scanoutpos+0x82/0x16b
>>> Â amdgpu_dm_do_flip+0x239/0x298
>>> Â amdgpu_dm_commit_planes.isra.23+0x379/0x54b
>>> Â ? dc_commit_state+0x3da/0x404
>>> Â amdgpu_dm_atomic_commit_tail+0x4fc/0x5d2
>>> Â ? wait_for_common+0x5b/0x69
>>> Â commit_tail+0x42/0x64
>>> Â process_one_work+0x1b0/0x314
>>> Â worker_thread+0x1cb/0x2c1
>>> Â ? create_worker+0x1da/0x1da
>>> Â kthread+0x156/0x15e
>>> Â ? kthread_flush_work+0xea/0xea
>>> Â ret_from_fork+0x22/0x40
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shirish S <shirish.s at amd.com>
>>> ---
>>> Â drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c | 4 ++--
>>> Â 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
>>> index 33149ed..d62206f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/core/dc.c
>>> @@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ static void disable_dangling_plane(struct dc
>>> *dc, struct dc_state *context)
>>> Â Â struct dc *dc_create(const struct dc_init_data *init_params)
>>> Â Â {
>>> -Â Â Â struct dc *dc = kzalloc(sizeof(*dc), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +Â Â Â struct dc *dc = kzalloc(sizeof(*dc), GFP_ATOMIC);
>> Are you sure this one can be called in atomic_context?
>>
>> If so then everything in consstruct() would also need GFP_ATOMIC.
>
> Well the backtrace is quite obvious, but I agree that change still
> looks fishy to me as well.
>
> Using GFP_ATOMIC should only be a last resort when nothing else helps,
> but here it looks more like we misuse a spinlock where a mutex or
> semaphore would be more appropriate.
>
> Where exactly becomes the context atomic in the call trace?
>
> Christian.
>
>>
>> Harry
>>
>>> Â Â Â Â Â unsigned int full_pipe_count;
>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â if (NULL == dc)
>>> @@ -937,7 +937,7 @@ bool dc_post_update_surfaces_to_stream(struct dc
>>> *dc)
>>> Â struct dc_state *dc_create_state(void)
>>> Â {
>>> Â Â Â Â Â struct dc_state *context = kzalloc(sizeof(struct dc_state),
>>> -Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â GFP_KERNEL);
>>> +Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â GFP_ATOMIC);
>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â if (!context)
>>> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â return NULL;
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> amd-gfx mailing list
>> amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
>
--
Regards,
Shirish S
