On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 02:02:23PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 08:53:02AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 09:44:15AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > > > On Wed, 03 Jun 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> a deadlock was introduced by commit 60a5ca015ffd2aacfe5674b5a401cd2a37159e07 > > > >> > > > >> Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> Date: Fri Jun 13 11:10:53 2014 +0300 > > > >> > > > >> drm/i915: Add locking around framebuffer_references-- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The commit amended intel_display.c:intel_user_framebuffer_destroy() with > > > >> mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex). > > > >> > > > >> A few weeks prior Chris Wilson had amended intel_fbdev.c:intelfb_create() > > > >> with a call to drm_framebuffer_unreference() while &dev->struct_mutex is > > > >> locked (commit edd586fe705e819bc711b5ed7194a0b6f9f1a7e1, "drm/i915: Discard > > > >> BIOS framebuffers too small to accommodate chosen mode"). > > > >> > > > > > > > > Just move the mutex_lock down a step. > > > > > > Lucas, did you try this? > > > > There's a goto unlock that also needed to be disabled, such as > > Your previous patch placed the mutex_lock before the goto out_unlock - I > fail to see what has been broken with that version? Can you resubmit that > as a proper patch with sob and Lucas' t-b? There wasn't, I just rewrote it incorrectly. There's also a drm_framebuffer_remove() called by intelfb_alloc which needs to be moved out of the mutex. A much larger disentangling of the functions involved here is required. Tvrstko volunteered himself. Brave, very brave :) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
