On 6/28/22 15:31, Robin Murphy wrote:
> ----->8-----
> [ 68.295951] ======================================================
> [ 68.295956] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
> [ 68.295963] 5.19.0-rc3+ #400 Not tainted
> [ 68.295972] ------------------------------------------------------
> [ 68.295977] cc1/295 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 68.295986] ffff000008d7f1a0
> (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: drm_gem_shmem_free+0x7c/0x198
> [ 68.296036]
> [ 68.296036] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 68.296041] ffff80000c14b820 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}, at:
> __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.0+0x4d8/0x1470
> [ 68.296080]
> [ 68.296080] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 68.296080]
> [ 68.296085]
> [ 68.296085] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 68.296090]
> [ 68.296090] -> #1 (fs_reclaim){+.+.}-{0:0}:
> [ 68.296111] fs_reclaim_acquire+0xb8/0x150
> [ 68.296130] dma_resv_lockdep+0x298/0x3fc
> [ 68.296148] do_one_initcall+0xe4/0x5f8
> [ 68.296163] kernel_init_freeable+0x414/0x49c
> [ 68.296180] kernel_init+0x2c/0x148
> [ 68.296195] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
> [ 68.296207]
> [ 68.296207] -> #0 (reservation_ww_class_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
> [ 68.296229] __lock_acquire+0x1724/0x2398
> [ 68.296246] lock_acquire+0x218/0x5b0
> [ 68.296260] __ww_mutex_lock.constprop.0+0x158/0x2378
> [ 68.296277] ww_mutex_lock+0x7c/0x4d8
> [ 68.296291] drm_gem_shmem_free+0x7c/0x198
> [ 68.296304] panfrost_gem_free_object+0x118/0x138
> [ 68.296318] drm_gem_object_free+0x40/0x68
> [ 68.296334] drm_gem_shmem_shrinker_run_objects_scan+0x42c/0x5b8
> [ 68.296352] drm_gem_shmem_shrinker_scan_objects+0xa4/0x170
> [ 68.296368] do_shrink_slab+0x220/0x808
> [ 68.296381] shrink_slab+0x11c/0x408
> [ 68.296392] shrink_node+0x6ac/0xb90
> [ 68.296403] do_try_to_free_pages+0x1dc/0x8d0
> [ 68.296416] try_to_free_pages+0x1ec/0x5b0
> [ 68.296429] __alloc_pages_slowpath.constprop.0+0x528/0x1470
> [ 68.296444] __alloc_pages+0x4e0/0x5b8
> [ 68.296455] __folio_alloc+0x24/0x60
> [ 68.296467] vma_alloc_folio+0xb8/0x2f8
> [ 68.296483] alloc_zeroed_user_highpage_movable+0x58/0x68
> [ 68.296498] __handle_mm_fault+0x918/0x12a8
> [ 68.296513] handle_mm_fault+0x130/0x300
> [ 68.296527] do_page_fault+0x1d0/0x568
> [ 68.296539] do_translation_fault+0xa0/0xb8
> [ 68.296551] do_mem_abort+0x68/0xf8
> [ 68.296562] el0_da+0x74/0x100
> [ 68.296572] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x68/0xc0
> [ 68.296585] el0t_64_sync+0x18c/0x190
> [ 68.296596]
> [ 68.296596] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 68.296596]
> [ 68.296601] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 68.296601]
> [ 68.296604] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 68.296608] ---- ----
> [ 68.296612] lock(fs_reclaim);
> [ 68.296622] lock(reservation_ww_class_mutex);
> [ 68.296633] lock(fs_reclaim);
> [ 68.296644] lock(reservation_ww_class_mutex);
> [ 68.296654]
> [ 68.296654] *** DEADLOCK ***
This splat could be ignored for now. I'm aware about it, although
haven't looked closely at how to fix it since it's a kind of a lockdep
misreporting.
--
Best regards,
Dmitry
