Hi John,
> > > > > > static void guc_cancel_busyness_worker(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > - cancel_delayed_work_sync(&guc->timestamp.work);
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * When intel_gt_reset was called, task will hold a lock.
> > > > > > + * To cacel delayed work here, the _sync version will also acquire a lock, which might
> > > > > > + * trigger the possible cirular locking dependency warning.
> > > > > > + * Check the reset_in_progress flag, call async verion if reset is in progress.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > This needs to explain in much more detail what is going on and why it is not
> > > > > a problem. E.g.:
> > > > >
> > > > > The busyness worker needs to be cancelled. In general that means
> > > > > using the synchronous cancel version to ensure that an in-progress
> > > > > worker will not keep executing beyond whatever is happening that
> > > > > needs the cancel. E.g. suspend, driver unload, etc. However, in the
> > > > > case of a reset, the synchronous version is not required and can
> > > > > trigger a false deadlock detection warning.
> > > > >
> > > > > The business worker takes the reset mutex to protect against resets
> > > > > interfering with it. However, it does a trylock and bails out if the
> > > > > reset lock is already acquired. Thus there is no actual deadlock or
> > > > > other concern with the worker running concurrently with a reset. So
> > > > > an asynchronous cancel is safe in the case of a reset rather than a
> > > > > driver unload or suspend type operation. On the other hand, if the
> > > > > cancel_sync version is used when a reset is in progress then the
> > > > > mutex deadlock detection sees the mutex being acquired through
> > > > > multiple paths and complains.
> > > > >
> > > > > So just don't bother. That keeps the detection code happy and is
> > > > > safe because of the trylock code described above.
> > > > So why do we even need to cancel anything if it doesn't do anything while
> > > > the reset is in progress?
> > > It still needs to be cancelled. The worker only aborts if it is actively
> > > executing concurrently with the reset. It might not start to execute until
> > > after the reset has completed. And there is presumably a reason why the
> > > cancel is being called, a reason not necessarily related to resets at all.
> > > Leaving the worker to run arbitrarily after the driver is expecting it to be
> > > stopped will lead to much worse things than a fake lockdep splat, e.g. a use
> > > after free pointer deref.
> > I was actually thinking why not leave things as they are and just
> > disable lockdep from CI. This doesn't look like a relevant report
> > to me.
> >
> > Andi
> Disable lockdep? The whole of lockdep? We absolutely do not want to disable
> an extremely important deadlock testing infrastructure in our test
> framework. That would be defeating the whole point of CI.
>
> Potentially we could annotate this one particular scenario to suppress this
> one particular error. But it seems simpler and safer to just update the
> code to not hit that scenario in the first place.
yes... lockdep is a debug tool and might provide false reports...
We need to have a great willingness to start fixing and hunting
debug lockdep's false positives (like this one, for instance).
It's even more annoying to reduce our CI pass rates, especially
when in BAT tests, with such false deadlocks.
It's the developer's responsibility to test its code with
debug_lockdep and fix all the potential deadlocks and ignore the
false ones.
I sent a patch for this[*] already.
Andi
[*] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gfx-ci/i915-infra/-/merge_requests/128
