From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/base: use a worker for sysfs unbind
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:06:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181210100634.GA8836@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181210084653.7268-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:46:53AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Drivers might want to remove some sysfs files, which needs the same
> locks and ends up angering lockdep. Relevant snippet of the stack
> trace:
>
> kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x3b/0x80
> bus_remove_driver+0x92/0xa0
> acpi_video_unregister+0x24/0x40
> i915_driver_unload+0x42/0x130 [i915]
> i915_pci_remove+0x19/0x30 [i915]
> pci_device_remove+0x36/0xb0
> device_release_driver_internal+0x185/0x250
> unbind_store+0xaf/0x180
> kernfs_fop_write+0x104/0x190
>
> I've stumbled over this because some new patches by Ram connect the
> snd-hda-intel unload (where we do use sysfs unbind) with the locking
> chains in the i915 unload code (but without creating a new loop),
> which upset our CI. But the bug is already there and can be easily
> reproduced by unbind i915 directly.
This is odd, why wouldn't any driver hit this issue? And why now since
you say this is triggerable today?
I know scsi was doing some strange things like trying to remove the
device itself from a sysfs callback on the device, which requires it to
just call a different kobject function created just for that type of
thing. Would that also make sense to do here instead of your workqueue?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/base: use a worker for sysfs unbind
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:06:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181210100634.GA8836@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181210084653.7268-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:46:53AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> Drivers might want to remove some sysfs files, which needs the same
> locks and ends up angering lockdep. Relevant snippet of the stack
> trace:
>
> kernfs_remove_by_name_ns+0x3b/0x80
> bus_remove_driver+0x92/0xa0
> acpi_video_unregister+0x24/0x40
> i915_driver_unload+0x42/0x130 [i915]
> i915_pci_remove+0x19/0x30 [i915]
> pci_device_remove+0x36/0xb0
> device_release_driver_internal+0x185/0x250
> unbind_store+0xaf/0x180
> kernfs_fop_write+0x104/0x190
>
> I've stumbled over this because some new patches by Ram connect the
> snd-hda-intel unload (where we do use sysfs unbind) with the locking
> chains in the i915 unload code (but without creating a new loop),
> which upset our CI. But the bug is already there and can be easily
> reproduced by unbind i915 directly.
This is odd, why wouldn't any driver hit this issue? And why now since
you say this is triggerable today?
I know scsi was doing some strange things like trying to remove the
device itself from a sysfs callback on the device, which requires it to
just call a different kobject function created just for that type of
thing. Would that also make sense to do here instead of your workqueue?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-10 10:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-10 8:46 [PATCH] drivers/base: use a worker for sysfs unbind Daniel Vetter
2018-12-10 10:06 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2018-12-10 10:06 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-12-10 10:18 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-10 10:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-10 10:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-12 11:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-12 11:08 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-12 11:19 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2018-12-12 12:40 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-12 12:40 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-13 9:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-12-13 9:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-12-13 9:58 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-13 10:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-12-13 11:05 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-12-13 12:36 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-13 12:36 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-13 16:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-12-13 16:25 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-13 18:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-12-13 18:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-12-17 19:48 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-18 0:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-12-07 9:31 Daniel Vetter
2018-12-07 9:58 ` Chris Wilson
2018-12-07 11:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-07 16:01 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-09 17:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2018-12-13 9:39 ` Chris Wilson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181210100634.GA8836@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.