On 2024-01-31 16:07, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+Jani
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:34:53PM +0800, wangxiaoming321 wrote:
intel_power_domains_init has been called twice in xe_device_probe:
xe_device_probe -> xe_display_init_nommio -> intel_power_domains_init(xe)
xe_device_probe -> xe_display_init_noirq -> intel_display_driver_probe_noirq
-> intel_power_domains_init(i915)
ok, once upon a time intel_power_domains_init() was called by the driver
initialization code and not initialized inside the display. I think.
Now it's part of the display probe and we never updated the xe side.
It needs remove one to avoid power_domains->power_wells double malloc.
unreferenced object 0xffff88811150ee00 (size 512):
comm "systemd-udevd", pid 506, jiffies 4294674198 (age 3605.560s)
hex dump (first 32 bytes):
10 b4 9d a0 ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ................
ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................
backtrace:
[<ffffffff8134b901>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x1c1/0x2b0
[<ffffffff812c98b2>] __kmalloc+0x52/0x150
[<ffffffffa08b0033>] __set_power_wells+0xc3/0x360 [xe]
[<ffffffffa08562fc>] xe_display_init_nommio+0x4c/0x70 [xe]
[<ffffffffa07f0d1c>] xe_device_probe+0x3c/0x5a0 [xe]
[<ffffffffa082e48f>] xe_pci_probe+0x33f/0x5a0 [xe]
[<ffffffff817f2187>] local_pci_probe+0x47/0xa0
[<ffffffff817f3db3>] pci_device_probe+0xc3/0x1f0
[<ffffffff8192f2a2>] really_probe+0x1a2/0x410
[<ffffffff8192f598>] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x160
[<ffffffff8192f6ae>] driver_probe_device+0x1e/0x90
[<ffffffff8192f92a>] __driver_attach+0xda/0x1d0
[<ffffffff8192c95c>] bus_for_each_dev+0x7c/0xd0
[<ffffffff8192e159>] bus_add_driver+0x119/0x220
[<ffffffff81930d00>] driver_register+0x60/0x120
[<ffffffffa05e50a0>] 0xffffffffa05e50a0
This will need a Fixes trailer. This seems to be a suitable one:
Fixes: 44e694958b95 ("drm/xe/display: Implement display support")
Signed-off-by: wangxiaoming321 <xiaoming.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
index 74391d9b11ae..e4db069f0db3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_display.c
@@ -134,8 +134,6 @@ static void xe_display_fini_nommio(struct drm_device *dev, void *dummy)
int xe_display_init_nommio(struct xe_device *xe)
{
- int err;
-
if (!xe->info.enable_display)
return 0;
@@ -145,10 +143,6 @@ int xe_display_init_nommio(struct xe_device *xe)
/* This must be called before any calls to HAS_PCH_* */
intel_detect_pch(xe);
- err = intel_power_domains_init(xe);
- if (err)
- return err;
xe_display_init_nommio() has xe_display_fini_nommio() as its destructor
counter part. Unfortunately display side looks wrong as it does:
init:
intel_display_driver_probe_noirq() -> intel_power_domains_init()
destroy:
i915_driver_late_release() -> intel_power_domains_cleanup()
I think leaving intel_power_domains_cleanup() as is for now so it's
called by xe works, but this needs to go through CI, which apparently
this series didn't go. I re-triggered it.
+Jani if he thinks this can be changed in another way or already have
the complete solution.
I don't. But it is and will be a recurring problem. i915 and xe core
drivers should handle display init and cleanup the same way. But
currently i915 goes on to call e.g. intel_power_domains_cleanup()
directly from top level driver code. There are other examples.
And we seem to have recently added *more*. See e.g. bd738d859e71
("drm/i915: Prevent modesets during driver init/shutdown").
That commit seems terrible Should we instead not only enable any code
that can cause modesets after it's safe to do so?
Cheers,
~Maarten
