Do you think i should send an issue to DRM/Radeon ?
Thanks for your help !
On 07/03/2017 19:41, Wargreen wrote:
> Sorry, i'm more a user than a debugger...
>
> So, the /proc/[PID]/stack output, with a gnome_shell:
> [<ffffffffc0b37e9f>] radeon_fence_default_wait+0xbf/0x170 [radeon]
> [<ffffffffae34227d>] fence_wait_timeout+0x9d/0x350
> [<ffffffffc0a2dba5>] ttm_bo_vm_fault+0x455/0x530 [ttm]
> [<ffffffffc0b39e27>] radeon_ttm_fault+0x47/0x70 [radeon]
> [<ffffffffae00f9d1>] __do_fault+0x81/0x170
> [<ffffffffae01377b>] handle_mm_fault+0x57b/0x1450
> [<ffffffffade70459>] __do_page_fault+0x289/0x5d0
> [<ffffffffade707c2>] do_page_fault+0x22/0x30
> [<ffffffffae4fccf8>] page_fault+0x28/0x30
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>
> And the corresponding locks :
> Mar 7 19:15:49 LaChoze kernel: [ 239.624948] NOHZ:
> local_softirq_pending 80
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718336] sysrq: SysRq : Show Locks
> Held
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718342]
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718342] Showing all locks held in
> the system:
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718371] 5 locks held by
> irq/1-i8042/126:
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718372] #0:
> (&serio->lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffae34dab8>] serio_interrupt+0x28/0x80
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718378] #1:
> (&dev->event_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffae353cba>] input_event+0x3a/0x60
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718382] #2:
> (rcu_read_lock){......}, at: [<ffffffffae352ee5>]
> input_pass_values.part.5+0x5/0x270
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718385] #3:
> (rcu_read_lock){......}, at: [<ffffffffae2c1eb5>] __handle_sysrq+0x5/0x220
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718389] #4:
> (tasklist_lock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffadeeae1d>]
> debug_show_all_locks+0x3d/0x1a0
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718412] 1 lock held by in:imklog/895:
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718412] #0:
> (&f->f_pos_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffae08883a>] __fdget_pos+0x4a/0x50
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718435] 2 locks held by Xorg/2215:
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718435] #0:
> (&rdev->exclusive_lock){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffffadef3710>]
> rt_down_read+0x10/0x20
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718439] #1:
> (&rdev->pm.mclk_lock){++++++}, at: [<ffffffffadef3710>]
> rt_down_read+0x10/0x20
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718452] 2 locks held by
> gnome-shell/2412:
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718453] #0:
> (&rdev->pm.mclk_lock){++++++}, at: [<ffffffffadef3710>]
> rt_down_read+0x10/0x20
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718456] #1:
> (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffc0a2d7b0>]
> ttm_bo_vm_fault+0x60/0x530 [ttm]
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718487]
> Mar 7 19:15:57 LaChoze kernel: [ 247.718487]
> =============================================
>
> If needeed, all theres logs are here :
> http://kalaj.darktech.org/~wargreen/logs/radeon/
> I'm here for the next step.
>
>
>
> On 06/03/2017 20:07, Julia Cartwright wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 06:59:26PM +0100, Wargreen wrote:
>>> Here a new try, with a process name more explicit, but without X crash
>>> this time.
>>> So it's the graphic's ressources demanding process.
>>>
>>> [ 497.053562] 2 locks held by Xorg/2154:
>>> [ 497.053563] #0: (&rdev->exclusive_lock){++++.+}, at: [<ffffffffa90f3710>] rt_down_read+0x10/0x20
>>> [ 497.053571] #1: (&rdev->pm.mclk_lock){++++++}, at: [<ffffffffa90f3710>] rt_down_read+0x10/0x20
>>> [ 497.053589] 2 locks held by gnome-shell/2344:
>>> [ 497.053590] #0: (&rdev->pm.mclk_lock){++++++}, at: [<ffffffffa90f3710>] rt_down_read+0x10/0x20
>>> [ 497.053597] #1: (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffc0af47b0>] ttm_bo_vm_fault+0x60/0x530 [ttm]
>> Unfortunately, this doesn't get us any more data than we already had.
>> For some reason, a thread (G.Main in the prior trace, gnome-shell here)
>> in this state fails to make progress.
>>
>> We need to better understand what this thread is doing. Is it
>> Runnable/spinning? Is it itself waiting on a lock? Dumping the stack
>> from it in this state might be revealing. The contents of
>> /proc/<pid>/stack might be of interest.
>>
>> Julia
>
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
