On 19-11-20, 11:35, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 18-11-20, 08:53, Rob Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 9:28 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 17-11-20, 09:02, Rob Clark wrote: > > > > With that on top of the previous patch, > > > > > > Don't you still have this ? Which fixed the lockdep in the remove path. > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201022080644.2ck4okrxygmkuatn@vireshk-i7/ > > > > > > To make it clear you need these patches to fix the OPP stuff: > > > > > > //From 5.10-rc3 (the one from the above link). > > > commit e0df59de670b ("opp: Reduce the size of critical section in _opp_table_kref_release()") > > This fixes debugfs stuff while the OPP table is removed. > > > > //Below two from linux-next > > > commit ef43f01ac069 ("opp: Always add entries in dev_list with opp_table->lock held") > > > commit 27c09484dd3d ("opp: Allocate the OPP table outside of opp_table_lock") > > This fixes debugfs stuff while the OPP table is added. > > > > This matches the diff I gave you earlier. > > > > > > > no, I did not have all three, only "opp: Allocate the OPP table > > outside of opp_table_lock" plus the fixup. But with all three: > > And looking at the lockdep you gave now, it looks like we have a > problem with OPP table's internal lock (opp_table->lock) as well apart > from the global opp_table_lock. > > I wish there was a way for me to reproduce the lockdep :( > > I know this is exhausting for both of us and I really want to be over > with it as soon as possible, this really should be the last patch > here, please try this along with other two. This fixes the debugfs > thing while the OPPs in the OPP table are removed (they are already > added without a lock around debugfs stuff). > > AFAIU, there is no further debugfs stuff that happens from within the > locks and so this really should be the last patch unless I missed > something. Rob, were you able to test this patch ? -- viresh
