On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have already reported this issue in [1].
> One of the issue was solved.
> Unfortunately, it looks like there is still a different problem here
> (Ubuntu/precise AMD64).
>
> I tried v4.10-rc1 and latest Linus tree up to...
>
> commit 98473f9f3f9bd404873cd1178c8be7d6d619f0d1
> "mm/filemap: fix parameters to test_bit()"
>
> Here we go...
>
> [ 29.636047] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c:1032
> [ 29.636055] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, pid: 1500, name: Xorg
> [ 29.636058] 1 lock held by Xorg/1500:
> [ 29.636060] #0: (&dev->struct_mutex){+.+.+.}, at:
> [<ffffffffa0680c13>] i915_mutex_lock_interruptible+0x43/0x140 [i915]
> [ 29.636107] CPU: 0 PID: 1500 Comm: Xorg Not tainted
> 4.10.0-rc1-6-iniza-amd64 #1
> [ 29.636109] Hardware name: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
> 530U3BI/530U4BI/530U4BH/530U3BI/530U4BI/530U4BH, BIOS 13XK 03/28/2013
> [ 29.636111] Call Trace:
> [ 29.636120] dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
> [ 29.636124] ___might_sleep+0x196/0x260
> [ 29.636127] __might_sleep+0x53/0xb0
> [ 29.636131] __pm_runtime_resume+0x7a/0x90
> [ 29.636159] intel_runtime_pm_get+0x25/0x90 [i915]
> [ 29.636189] aliasing_gtt_bind_vma+0xaa/0xf0 [i915]
> [ 29.636220] i915_vma_bind+0xaf/0x1e0 [i915]
> [ 29.636248] i915_gem_execbuffer_relocate_entry+0x513/0x6f0 [i915]
> [ 29.636272] i915_gem_execbuffer_relocate_vma.isra.34+0x188/0x250 [i915]
> [ 29.636275] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xd/0x10
> [ 29.636294] ? i915_gem_execbuffer_reserve_vma.isra.31+0x152/0x1f0 [i915]
> [ 29.636316] ? i915_gem_execbuffer_reserve.isra.32+0x372/0x3a0 [i915]
> [ 29.636342] i915_gem_do_execbuffer.isra.38+0xa70/0x1a40 [i915]
> [ 29.636347] ? __might_fault+0x4e/0xb0
> [ 29.636373] i915_gem_execbuffer2+0xc5/0x260 [i915]
> [ 29.636376] ? __might_fault+0x4e/0xb0
> [ 29.636395] drm_ioctl+0x206/0x450 [drm]
> [ 29.636420] ? i915_gem_execbuffer+0x340/0x340 [i915]
> [ 29.636425] ? __fget+0x5/0x200
> [ 29.636429] do_vfs_ioctl+0x91/0x6f0
> [ 29.636431] ? __fget+0x111/0x200
> [ 29.636433] ? __fget+0x5/0x200
> [ 29.636436] SyS_ioctl+0x79/0x90
> [ 29.636441] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc6
>
> On suspend/resume I see the same call trace.
> [2] points to the "BUG" line.
Well, this appears to be an i915 issue, but not a serious one.
Clearly, a function that may sleep (pm_runtime_get_sync() in
intel_runtime_pm_get()) is called with disabled interrupts. If I
understand the code correctly, though, it actually is not going to
sleep in this particular case, because pm_runtime_get_sync() has
already been called once for this device in the same code path which
means that this particular instance will return immediately, so this
is a false-positive (most likely).
Let me see if I the might_sleep_if() assertion in
__pm_runtime_resume(() can be moved to a better place.
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
