On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:27:30AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 22/03/16 10:07, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >Is it really the same one? There should be another lockdep chain that
> >isn't in bugzilla...
>
> Looks the same to me:
>
> Bz:
>
> [ 179.762863] rtcwake/5995 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 179.762877] (s_active#6){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff8124ec70>]
> kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x40/0xa0
> [ 179.762878]
> but task is already holding lock:
> [ 179.762885] (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81078c4d>]
> cpu_hotplug_begin+0x6d/0xc0
> [ 179.762886]
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>
> This CI run:
>
> [ 127.210522] rtcwake/5947 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 127.210539] (s_active#6){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffff81250740>]
> kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x40/0xa0
> [ 127.210540]
> but task is already holding lock:
> [ 127.210549] (cpu_hotplug.lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81078f5d>]
> cpu_hotplug_begin+0x6d/0xc0
> [ 127.210550]
> which lock already depends on the new lock.
Ok, the chain I'm looking for doesn't involve the kernfs link.
> >
> >>> incomplete -> PASS (hsw-gt2)
> >>>Test pm_rpm:
> >>> Subgroup basic-pci-d3-state:
> >>> fail -> DMESG-FAIL (snb-x220t)
> >>
> >>Device suspended while HW access again.
> >>
> >>> dmesg-warn -> PASS (snb-dellxps)
> >>>
> >>>bdw-nuci7 total:194 pass:182 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:12
> >>>bdw-ultra total:194 pass:173 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:21
> >>>bsw-nuc-2 total:194 pass:156 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:37
> >>>byt-nuc total:194 pass:159 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:35
> >>>hsw-brixbox total:194 pass:171 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:22
> >>>hsw-gt2 total:194 pass:176 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:17
> >>>ilk-hp8440p total:194 pass:129 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:64
> >>>ivb-t430s total:194 pass:169 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:25
> >>>skl-i7k-2 total:194 pass:171 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:23
> >>>snb-dellxps total:194 pass:159 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:34
> >>>snb-x220t total:194 pass:160 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:33
> >>>
> >>>Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/Patchwork_1649/
> >>>
> >>>e7a7673e9840fe8b50a5a2894c75565ec7858a00 drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-03m-19d-10h-09m-53s UTC integration manifest
> >>>a1c5f9b1e8b9cbfdab0fb71ccf7a5a0838b56069 drm/i915: Name the anonymous per-engine context struct
> >>
> >>So looking good.
> >>
> >>Chris, r-b on v2? It was just a revert of a hunk which changed one
> >>instance of ctx->i915->dev->struct_mutex to
> >>engine->dev->struct_mutex which the CI reminded me is not allowed in
> >>some places.
> >
> >That one again! One day we will get engine init/fini sorted. Yes,
>
> Yes r-b, just to be really sure?
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
