On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki
<rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 1/24/2017 2:33 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> did you had a chance to look at this?
>> The problem still remains in Linux v4.10-rc5.
>
>
> No, I didn't.
>
> As I said, this is not a serious issue.
Something like the attached (untested).
Please try it and let me know if it makes the splat go away.
Thanks,
Rafael
---
drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 11 ++++++-----
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
===================================================================
--- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
+++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/runtime.c
@@ -966,13 +966,13 @@ int __pm_runtime_idle(struct device *dev
unsigned long flags;
int retval;
- might_sleep_if(!(rpmflags & RPM_ASYNC) && !dev->power.irq_safe);
-
if (rpmflags & RPM_GET_PUT) {
if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->power.usage_count))
return 0;
}
+ might_sleep_if(!(rpmflags & RPM_ASYNC) && !dev->power.irq_safe);
+
spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags);
retval = rpm_idle(dev, rpmflags);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags);
@@ -998,13 +998,13 @@ int __pm_runtime_suspend(struct device *
unsigned long flags;
int retval;
- might_sleep_if(!(rpmflags & RPM_ASYNC) && !dev->power.irq_safe);
-
if (rpmflags & RPM_GET_PUT) {
if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&dev->power.usage_count))
return 0;
}
+ might_sleep_if(!(rpmflags & RPM_ASYNC) && !dev->power.irq_safe);
+
spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->power.lock, flags);
retval = rpm_suspend(dev, rpmflags);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags);
@@ -1029,7 +1029,8 @@ int __pm_runtime_resume(struct device *d
unsigned long flags;
int retval;
- might_sleep_if(!(rpmflags & RPM_ASYNC) && !dev->power.irq_safe);
+ might_sleep_if(!(rpmflags & RPM_ASYNC) && !dev->power.irq_safe &&
+ dev->power.runtime_status != RPM_ACTIVE);
if (rpmflags & RPM_GET_PUT)
atomic_inc(&dev->power.usage_count);
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
