Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> : > > I'm not sure about the first half your problem, but for the > scheduling-while-atomic: > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 2:16 PM Tobias S. Predel > <tobias.predel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [28125.482259] BUG: scheduling while atomic: > kworker/u16:0/33416/0x00000002 > ... > > [28125.482436] Preemption disabled at: > > [28125.482443] [<0000000000000000>] 0x0 > > ^^ This line is a bit weird -- shouldn't this have a real PC? > > > [28125.482452] CPU: 5 PID: 33416 Comm: kworker/u16:0 Tainted: G > W 5.7.0-rc2-next-20200421-1-next-git #1 > > [28125.482456] Hardware name: HP HP ProBook 430 G5/8377, BIOS Q85 > Ver. 01.09.01 10/15/2019 > > [28125.482477] Workqueue: phy0 rtw_watch_dog_work [rtw88] > > [28125.482481] Call Trace: > > [28125.482495] dump_stack+0x66/0x90 > > [28125.482505] __schedule_bug.cold+0x8e/0x9b > > [28125.482512] __schedule+0x686/0x7b0 > > [28125.482520] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x20/0x40 > > [28125.482525] schedule+0x46/0xf0 > > [28125.482531] schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock+0xa5/0x120 > > [28125.482540] ? hrtimer_init_sleeper+0xa0/0xa0 > > [28125.482546] usleep_range+0x67/0x90 > > [28125.482568] rtw_fw_send_h2c_command+0xe0/0x1a0 [rtw88] > > [28125.482590] rtw_fw_set_pwr_mode+0x95/0xb0 [rtw88] > > [28125.482610] rtw_enter_lps+0xa1/0x100 [rtw88] > > [28125.482625] rtw_watch_dog_work+0x21c/0x230 [rtw88] > > [28125.482635] process_one_work+0x1da/0x3d0 > > [28125.482643] worker_thread+0x4a/0x3d0 > > [28125.482651] kthread+0x122/0x160 > > [28125.482658] ? process_one_work+0x3d0/0x3d0 > > [28125.482663] ? kthread_park+0x90/0x90 > > [28125.482670] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x40 > > This looks like it might be a regression here: > > commit 6343a6d4b2130be9323f347d60af8a7ba8f7242c > Author: Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue Apr 7 15:33:31 2020 +0800 > > rtw88: Add delay on polling h2c command status bit > > That poll macros is using usleep, which obviously can sleep. We need > to be using a udelay-variant instead. > Maybe we need an atomic version of read_poll_timeout() ? I am not sure if this is required, but seems like it is useful for me. Noticed much of them have its atomic version, but not for this new added one. Yen-Hsuan
